Finally, A Real Question From The Whitehouse Press Pool

Have a look at this question:

Q I'd like to ask a question about the war spending bill. Part of this debate is the assertion by you and others, and including the President, that a date certain for withdrawal of troops would lead to chaos, accelerated violence, regional conflict in Iraq. Why should Americans trust your assumptions about the outcome of troop withdrawal, based on this administration's record of assumptions and the way things played out in Iraq?

Finally, some one has the balls to ask this.

Really, if we couldn't trust the Administration in their initial run up to the Iraq war, why should we believe their pure speculation about the future should we pull the troops?

Do you buy Tony the Snow Job's answer?

MR. SNOW: Okay, don't trust our assumptions, take a look at the record itself. What you have found is that there's been a determination on the part of the terror network to try to make a couple of cases: Number one, you can't rely on the Americans. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, as well as Abu Musab al Zarqawi, have tried to make the point that the Americans, they really can't take the heat, they're going to get out, and when they get out, you go in and you take over. And that is a case they make in recruiting, and it is a case they also make in trying to wage acts of terror against neighboring states and to try to weaken the will of those who have been supporting us in the war on terror. So don't take our word for it, take their word for it. And the President read out some of those back in September.

Secondly, if you try to think strategically about what this says, if you have a date certain regardless, succeed or fail, what it says to those who want to commit acts of terror is, put your feet up, go ahead and try to build up arms strength and go try to do this, that or the other, try to get yourself organized, wait it out, and when the Americans leave, you hit and you hit hard. That would make common sense. And I think you're going to find most military folks agree with it.

What you pointed out, David, is that in a time of war, nobody is a perfect predictor. But on the other hand, what you have to do is to make sure that you're not weakening your hand by doing something that almost immediately could be construed as a rhetorical victory for the enemy, and ultimately as a strategic victory for the enemy, because you get -- take a look at what happened as the new Baghdad plan came out. You saw many terror figures getting out of Baghdad. You saw that there was a change in the attitude and behavior of a number of people, including perhaps Muqtada al Sadr.

What you have seen, is, in fact, there -- people take seriously the focused application of American force. And as a result, they behave differently. And even though it is -- certainly, as Helen was just pointing out, not perfect in Iraq, there has been some improvement, and we hope it continues to improve. So those are the kind of considerations that go into that.

The Real Reason They Doth Protest So Much

Here's the truth behind the matter of the AG judicial firing scandal:

Q The cameras weren't on this morning. You came and said one of the big stumbling blocks is you don't want to see Karl Rove with his hand up in front of a bunch of cameras flashing.

MR. SNOW: You bet.

Doh! Did he just admit that? But wait, there's more. Is the W, Rove and Co...

Q -- ...dodging the oath because of the legal consequences?

MR. SNOW: We're dodging the oath because -- well, I'm not going to say we're dodging the oath, because that -- (laughter.) Yes, I know, kaboom, steel trap closes. No, it's -- this is not a notion of dodging. It's simply, we don't think it's appropriate.

Really, it's not up to you to decide what is appropriate, now is it Mr. Snow?

Q Appropriate doesn't set the scene.

MR. SNOW: The scene?

Q People are seeking the truth.

And, you tend to get better answers when people have to swear to their testimony, no?

MR. SNOW: That's right, and we're making the truth available. And that's why we're kind of confused, because it seems that people are more interested in sort of seeing White House officials with their hands up being hectored, and I don't think members of Congress --

Q Why do you say that? Why don't you think they really want to know --

MR. SNOW: Why don't you -- okay, I'll tell you why, because there is so much speculation about this. I opened up the newspapers today, and there are pictures of Karl Rove, many people saying, we need to -- the purpose here is to find out what happened, what the truth is.

"Making the truth available," sounds very different to me than actually answering questions under oath. Stepping up to make the truth available doesn't mean that you need speak the truth. In fact there is more than one way to lie, now isn't there? You can make misstatements, intentionally. And you could simply not say the truth, even though it may be "available."

Here's the problem:

Q So Tony, this President for years has used the Constitution as his backdrop. He said, look, this is my right under the Constitution.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q This government was founded on a series of checks and balances. Why not, if you're going to say you're using the Constitution, just apply what she's using there to what this government was founded upon: checks and balances --

But really, why don't you want them to tell the truth under oath, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, look, again, there's a legitimate oversight of the Justice Department and the decisions that went into this, and what we've said is since there were conversations and communications between the White House and the Justice Department, you ought to be able to see them all -- every one, every single -- every single communication available to the American public.

Therefore, that -- you're talking about transparency. That's the kind of transparency that you don't normally get. So we have made an offer not only to do that, but to say to members of Congress, you want to talk to our guys, you can. And they are going to be compelled legally to tell the truth. But furthermore, the President is going to tell them to tell the truth because it's in our interest to make sure that the whole truth gets out.

Q But do you agree that transparency is something that this administration shuns?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't agree.

Q Okay, when it was time for the Vice President to give up the list of names of his energy council --

MR. SNOW: Well, as you recall, April, that was, in fact, a separation of powers case that the Vice President --

Q I understand --

MR. SNOW: -- won precisely because of the checks and balances you've talked about.

Q But secrecy, secrecy --...


...Q I'm saying how this White House seems to run from transparency.

When Tony the Snow job leans on "transparency as modus operandi of the W, Rove and Co, you know the hypocrisy abounds like molasses pours down the Whitehouse hallways; thick and slow. See the top of the post for the real reasons they don't want the oath taken.

Reflecting the Priorities of the American People?

Friday witnessed yet another attempt by the W, Rove and Co to paint Dems as foolish. That's not news, but what's in the bill the President has sworn to veto is rather interesting (and would only be the second bill he would veto if he does).

The question I have for the blogisphere is thus: Does this bill reflect the will of the people, or is it politics as usual as I am almost certain that pork is laden in any bill such as this?

Have a look:

Having noted that, this supplemental appropriations bill actually cuts funding for these very people. For democracy- building efforts, it cuts that by $40 million. It cuts $100 million out of efforts to build local governing capacity. It builds -- it cuts jobs programs by $30 million, and I just mentioned the PRTs -- provisional reconstruction teams -- cuts $33 million out of that, and another $20 million out of programs for the rule of law.

Now, while cutting this funding for peace and prosperity, here's what this bill -- and this is a emergency supplemental military bill -- here are some of the items in there: $60.4 million for salmon fisheries; $74 million for peanut storage; $100 million for citrus assistance; $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishing; $400 million for rural schools; and $500 million for a firefighting fund that already has an available balance of $831 million. These may be priorities, but they are not part of an emergency supplemental for the military.

By the way, if "day after day, the money is running out like sands through an hour glass," whose fault is that? If we weren't in Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't have this tick tock problem. But really, Tony the Snow job is laying it on thick. These are suggested budget cuts. We are already hemoraging cash to Iraq like dope evaporates in the opium den. These aren't real cuts, are they Tony?

Q Can I just ask on that, before we go to other things? When you said the cuts that it makes, is that cuts from existing spending --

MR. SNOW: That's cuts from our request.

Q Oh, from your request.

MR. SNOW: No, these are requests that we had made.

So, really Tony. You are playing politics, a game you suggest that when others do it, it's dastardly, no?

Don't Ask

Here's another fun Mark Fiore Vid: Enjoy.

The Difference Between Interviews and Testimony

It looks like the Whitehouse is spending a great deal of political capital to avoid the checks and balances established by our Constitution. Whenever a set of politicians suggest that the other side is simply playing politics, I think we have to request that they point the giant wagging finger of blame inward.

In the case of the AG and the firings of relatively qualified judges as the Whitehouse struggles to defend itself, we have to ask ourselves to what end? If you ask me, it sounds rather suspicious; like they are trying to hide something. If they had nothing to fear they wouldn't fear testifying.

Is there a difference between being interviewed and testifying? You betchya! And that's the very reason why the Whitehouse is fearful of being brought in front of congress and have to swear on their beloved bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Q But I'm pressing on a point that these are not actually interviews -- that's your word. The senators, like Senator Leahy, say they want testimony. Testimony, there is a transcript. This is not an interview. You want it to be an interview, but it's up to the Congress. They're the ones investigating, and they say they want testimony, not interviews.

MR. SNOW: Ed, what we're doing is we're trying to be accommodating to Congress by offering them extraordinary insight into a deliberative process. You also know that everybody who goes -- the President expects everybody who talks to Congress to tell the truth, and so does the law. And they know that it would be illegal not to tell them truth.

So the question you've got to ask yourself is, is this pressure on transcripts and everything, is this really something where somebody thinks that there's going to be a fact that they're not going to receive? The answer is, no. The question is whether you are trying to create a political spectacle, rather than simply the basis of getting at the truth. This, I think, is an important and crucial distinction, because, again, I'm not sure -- well, I think we can say with confidence that they're going to get every fact they need to find out what's going on.

Q Are you afraid that they'll be able to go through and find inconsistencies in testimony if there's a transcript?

MR. SNOW: No, they'll be able to do it.

Really, Tony? If your pals in the W, Rove and Co are planning on delivering the facts, and just the facts; then why the hesitation to do it under oath? Suspicious, no? Really, what is their past history in being forthcoming with facts (see refusal of the Veep to testify in Libby's hearing)?

But what is it that the President and his staff are really trying to do?

Q Tony, the President said yesterday, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Does the President feel as though Karl and his other top aides are being unfairly targeted in some way, singled out? Is he feeling sort of like he needs, in a way, to protect them from a --

MR. SNOW: I think what the President is really trying to do is to protect the integrity of the institution.

Q But he seems to be particularly concerned about honorable public servants.

MR. SNOW: I think that people probably who are -- seem to be most concerned are people on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If you ask me, the W, Rove and Co has sold their integrity a long time ago...about six years to be exact. There is nothing left there to protect as they have sullied the institution over and again with their actions.

Everybody's A Musician: Happy St. Pat's Day.

From the sublime to the professional:

A Dark Malaise Metastasizes About The Soul Of America

President Bush still thinks his war in Iraq is the right thing to do in it's current incarnation:

Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it.

It's his way, or the highway and the subtext: "How about another giant helping of deferred taxes on Americans,” after all, what else is incurred debt? And, if you are not loyal, you get fired, regardless how competent you are:

Q Tony, real quick, back to the loyalty question. In that Kyle Sampson memo, he says, "The vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80 to 85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies," et cetera. Does the President believe that a U.S. attorney is successful if he's a "loyal Bushie"?

MR. SNOW: Again, you're going to have to -- what you're trying to do is to get the President to respond to a characterization by Kyle Sampson. I've already told you what the definition of loyalty is in this White House, which is to do your job -- to understand that it is an honor to be in the White House, and an honor to serve the American people, and you treat that as a trust. Loyalty to the President means doing your job and faithfully carrying out the priorities of the administration.

I think I laid it out, when you're talking about U.S. attorneys, that means following the priorities within the Department of Justice; it means doing your job -- doing it faithfully, all.

Q How about the oath to office?

MR. SNOW: We believe in that, too. Chow time. (Laughter.)

But the avoidance of responsibility and improper treatment of people who are doing their jobs while rewarding incompetence (e.g. "you're doin' a heckuva job Brownie") is symptomatic of the larger, dark malaise that has metastasized about the soul of America. That is, Iraq and the Global War On Terror.

From the outset, the thing was bankrupt as an idea. As we progress further and further down the rabbit hole we find that Iraq may very well be the Albatross that sinks our dear country.

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counter-terror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

Indeed, many of us in the blogisphere have been saying this for a great long while. Why the W, Rove and Co insists that their way is the "right" way is that they have no other choice. Otherwise, they would have no other thing to do than turn themselves in for crimes against humanity and America. Really,

This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

Ronald Reagan: American Hero?

Those who would suggest that Reagan was a great president would do well to remember a one woman from small town in El Salvador and check their consciences:

Rufina Amaya, the woman who was often identified as the last, or only, survivor of the massacre at the village of El Mozote, died last week. She was not, strictly speaking, the only survivor of that monstrous event, but she appears to have been the only one who emerged with her wits about her, a clear memory of what took place, and the will to describe how hundreds of people, including her husband and four of her children, were systematically butchered on Dec. 11, 1981, in an impoverished corner of El Salvador.

The massacre took place in the early days of the United States' involvement in El Salvador. In that conflict, radical leftist guerrillas tried to overthrow a ruling establishment utterly loathed by the population at large for its corruption and human rights atrocities. The Reagan administration intervened to train and equip the Salvadoran army, and to shore up the government against what it feared would become a red tide of communism lapping at the very borders of the Rio Grande...

...The troops arrived the following day and, after an initial brutal search, told the villagers that they could return to their homes. "We were happy then," Señora Amaya recalled. " 'The repression is over,' we said."

But the troops returned. Acting on orders, they separated the villagers into groups of men, young girls, and women and children. Rufina Amaya managed to slip behind some trees as her group was being herded to the killing ground, and from there she witnessed the murders, which went on until late at night. An army officer, told by an underling that a soldier was refusing to kill children, said, "Where is the sonofabitch who said that? I am going to kill him," and bayoneted a child on the spot. She heard her own children crying out for her as they met their deaths. The troops herded people into the church and houses facing a patch of grass that served as the village plaza. They shot the villagers or dismembered them with machetes, then set the structures on fire. At last, believing they had killed all the citizens of El Mozote and the surrounding hamlets, the troops withdrew.

Do First, Ask For Forgiveness Later?

You might think that the W, Rove and Co motto is: "Do first, ask for forgiveness later." However, they don't do a lot of the latter at all, now do they? In fact, they don't apologize, nor do they motion their hats in any direction other than a small nod that some small error may had been made.

Mainly, they make promises to get to the bottom of issues. But ask yourselves this? How long have we been waiting for the promised follow up with "leakers?"

"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility," Gonzales told a brief news conference at the Justice Department.

"My pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability and to make improvements so the mistakes that occurred in this instance do not occur again in the future," he said.

That doesn't do anything to repair the reputation of those who were fired in the first place. Whamo! Pure Rovian politics as usual! Float the lies and let them deal with the aftermath; the very foundation of "swiftboat" activism.

A Clear Definition Of Leadership

A friend forwared an interesting link. In it, there's one letter that sets it out plainly:

When confronting an enemy, leadership seeks not to make its people fearful but rather to make its people fearless.

Sometimes all it takes is one sentence to clearly delineate the difference between charletons and the genuine article.

Showing Support For The Troops Or Support For Themselves?

Just one small question today, if Halliburton believed so greatly in the almighty cause that the W, Rove and Co suggests is the Iraq Conflagration, why did they move it's CEO to Dubai rather than Baghdad? Seems like the latter would show more support for the troops, no?

HOUSTON, March 11 — Halliburton, the big energy services company, said on Sunday that it would open a corporate headquarters in the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai and move its chairman and chief executive, David J. Lesar, there.

No doubt, Lesar isn't going to be living in some sustainable, green and solar powered home. In fact, there isn't much green about living in Dubai, or is there? No doubt, the choice of office and home environs when one can afford whatever one wants says a great deal about the character of the men making such decisions.

Gonzales Gone?

I've said this long ago:

Mr. Gonzales seems to forget that it isn't his job to protect the president any more, but to protect the American people - proving once again, the W, Rove and Co is missusing American Taxpayer dollars.

Looks like the Mainstreem Media is finally catching on to the fact that Alberto Gonzales is really just another pawn playing for the W, Rove and Co.

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.

The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.

But like so many of the administration’s promises, this one evaporated before the ink on those letters could dry. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, admitted Friday that his agency had used the new powers improperly.

Mr. Gonzales does not directly run the F.B.I., but it is part of his department and has clearly gotten the message that promises (and civil rights) are meant to be broken.

It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

The attorney general helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture. He has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.

His Justice Department has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.

The Justice Department has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

Does The President "Respect The Conviction," As He Suggests We Should?

One has to wonder what side of the mouth the President is talking today. Really, he suggests that we should respect the decision the jury made in Libby's case. But he follows that up by buttoning up his mouth. This suggests to me that he does not respect the decision. What say you blogisphere?

Q Mr. President, I want to ask you about he conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Your critics are saying that his conviction makes the promise that you made to bring honor and dignity back to the White House, that this promise will go unmet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, this was a lengthy trial on a serious matter, and a jury of his peers convicted him. And we've got to respect that conviction.

Secondly, this is an ongoing legal matter. In other words, there's more legal procedures to take place, and at this time, it's inappropriate for me, or the administration, to be issuing comments about this serious matter.

On a personal note, I was sad. I was sad for a man who had worked in my administration, and particularly sad for his family.

What exactly does he mean respect that conviction?

Meanwhile, What's Jena Up To? Busy Concerning Herself With "Alienationists?"

Well, of course, she's enlisting as one of the 20K surge to help her Daddy win the GWoT? Not!

She's going to write a nice tome based on her experiences in Central America. Whoopee:

Q Your daughter, Jenna, is writing a book about her experiences in Central America. She will be focusing on a single mother with HIV. Has she been part of your eyes and ears in the region now that she's been there for quite a while?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, she is -- first of all, I'm very proud of her. She is an accomplished woman. She came back -- I haven't seen a lot of her because she's been spending a lot of time in Central America as a UNICEF volunteer -- but she came back and talked to me about this young girl that she has befriended. And she's deeply concerned about alienationists in our world, and is going to try to raise some money to help the education programs there.

To me, her book and her example is what America is all about. We've got compassionate people, and when we find suffering and see income disparity, or see poverty, we'd like to help people lift themselves up.

Excuse me, “Alienationist?” With W being the divider not the “uniter,” does he qualify as an “Alienationist,” whatever the fuck that is?

Oh, and I don't think you need to look to far outside of the Beltway to find people in dire need of compassion, not the least of which are the GIs wounded in GW's GWoT housed in Building 18. Come on, there are some real issues caused by her pappy, why doesn't she do something about that?

Feeling Sorry For Libby?

Vice President's Statement on Libby Verdict

I am very disappointed with the verdict. I am saddened for Scooter and his family. As I have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years of public service.

Since his legal team has announced that he is seeking a new trial and, if necessary, pursuing an appeal, I plan to have no further comment on the merits of this matter until these proceedings are concluded.

What? BNo more machinations on how Libby is innocent until proven guilty? What's more, no admission that justice has been served?

Of course, we get more of the same - "not saying anytying in an ongoing legal matter." Why do I get the sense that The Big Dick isn't feeling sorry for Libby, but is feeling sorry for himself?

For some reason, this old folk song is twisting in my brain...

Hang down your head Tom Dooley,
hang down your head and cry....

Incidentially, if you go to the Whitehouse web location, Dana Parino does all she can to not answer very pointed questions. Don't hold your breath if you want the Whitehouse to come clean. But if you are a betting person, it would be a pretty safe bet that the President will issue some kind of pardon for Libby, very soon. After which, don't expect any more answers to any similar questions:

Q Dana, you said the President is saddened by this. Is he saddened by the fact that a former top advisor in this building is facing this personal problem? Or is he saddened by the fact that a former advisor is convicted of lying in a federal investigation?

MS. PERINO: He was saddened for Scooter himself, personally, and for Scooter's family.

Q He's not saddened that his top advisor lied to -- was found guilty of lying to investigators?

MS. PERINO: He's saddened for Scooter. We're not going to comment on the trial.

Q I have one on this, I have one on another issue.

MS. PERINO: Maybe we can do this, and then I can finish up and come back.

Q You said that nobody has reached out to Scooter from the White House?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Q Is he being cut loose after being a loyal soldier?

MS. PERINO: I don't know -- Victoria, I'm not -- I don't know anybody who has been contact with him. It's possible that people have. I have not.

In the odd event you wonder what exactly Harry Reid has said about this, here you go:

I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct.

Two Zany Windsurfing Videos To Warm Your Souls

This is a bit of a diversion. File this under the "you thought you were cold" category. Enjoy:

Politics As Usual: The W, Rove And Co. Deflate Their Own Argument And Use Dead GIs to Fan the Flames Of Thier Cause

I love it when members of the W, Rove and co suggest that any reduction in troop levels in Iraq would lead to victory terrorists in Iraq when they go ahead and qualify things thusly:

We don't know and we cannot predict every turn that lies ahead. As General Petraeus has put it, "the way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and there will undoubtedly be some tough days. We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees."

Come on, you can't have your cake and eat it two, Dick. If the future is unpredictable for us, it should be unpredictable for you. What makes you so sure your way is the right way? How can the W, Rove and Co be so certain that the outcome of a strategic withdrawal would produce malignant results, particularly if we re-deploy these troops to more effectively go after the very terrorists we say we are after rather than have them come at us like we have pasted broad targets on the backs of our GIs?

Oh, and sure this war on terror a test of wills, but also sheer lunacy as we are fighting in a place we should not have entered (see comments from Bush Sr.'s book of the same subject). I've said this before, but might it not be that we are on the wrong offensive and we could certainly realign to a more strategic and profitable offensive?

But there is more - the Right clamors all over themselves when the left uses crosses or boots to reflect the real tragedy of those KIA for the Iraq Conflagration. So, why is it that the Big Dick Cheney gets to foist these stories on us to support his agenda? Why isn't the right aghast at the use of dead GIs for political gain?

The general has it exactly right. And I know he would agree that the single most reliable fact of this war is the skill and courage of the men and women fighting it. Two months ago at the White House, President Bush awarded the Medal of Honor to Corporal Jason Dunham of the United States Marines. While leading his rifle squad during an attack near the Syrian border, Corporal Dunham found himself in hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent. After being wrestled to the ground, the man rolled out a grenade that he'd been concealing. Without hesitation, Corporal Dunham threw himself on the grenade and used his helmet and body to absorb the blast. He did not survive his wounds. But by his actions, Jason Dunham saved the lives of his men. And he now ranks among the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. (Applause.)

Applause for one of the men that sent this GI to his demise? Irony is not lost here, now is it?

Have one more look at the rhetorical coffin the W, Rove and Co is nailing shut on America as we type:

The cause we serve is freedom. That cause is right. And by the valor of those who serve it, that cause will prevail.

Now, if you ask me, this violates quote number one above, predicting the future when you suggest one cannot. Alas, what's a bloggers to do, but point out the hypocrisy...something the W, Rove and Co is not short on.

W's Head Firmly Planted In The Sand

Q Tony, thank you. Two questions. Since the President's one-time election opponent is the only Vice President ever to win the Academy Award's Oscar, did the President send him congratulations?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware that he did. But I will send mine.

Q Is this because -- the fact that you don't know that he sent him congratulations due to the fact that the President believes the award should have been for science fiction?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. But that was very clever. That was a good one.

Q Thank you very much.

Q No, it wasn't.

MR. SNOW: Front row disagrees.

Q Did the President watch the movie?

MR. SNOW: I doubt it.

Q.E.D.

Who Is Leading Al Queda and One Other Troubling Bit Of Imformation From The Whitehouse

If I were to ask you the question, "Who is leading Al Queda," what answer would you come up with?

Let me guess: Would it be "I don't know?"

Well, it is for Tony the Snow job. Have a look:

Q Tony, yesterday the President's new Director of National Intelligence testified on Capitol Hill for the first time, and said, U.S. intelligence believes that Osama bin Laden and his number two are alive in Pakistan and reestablishing training camps. If you really have bin Laden on the run, how is he reestablishing training camps?

MR. SNOW: Well, that's a question -- that's an intelligence matter that I'm not going to be able to go into.

Q But how can you continually say the leadership is on the run and --

MR. SNOW: Well, you take a look also at statements that have been made by generals in recent days -- General Schoomaker the other day had a comment that I was asked about, which is he thought bin Laden had been marginalized. The question is whether al Qaeda -- I think the bin Laden question may be separable from the al Qaeda question. It's clear that al Qaeda is trying to gain strength --

Q But isn't he the leader of al Qaeda?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. It's a real question about who assumes operational command. One of the things we've found is that the command structure has been degraded significantly and that remains the case. But in terms of trying to characterize precisely how the command structure looks or how it operates, it would be inappropriate to comment from the podium. But certainly, if you take a look, over and over you've had key members taken out, and also reports in the press that the leadership had become much more decentralized, as had the activities of al Qaeda. Indeed, you had the correspondence between Ayman al Zawahiri and Abu Musab al Zarqawi where you had Zawahiri basically asking for money from Zarqawi, when he was head, and also begging him -- it looked as it al Qaeda in Iraq in some cases at least had some leverage over al Qaeda leadership, wherever it was hiding.

I'm not on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq, so I don't have the intel to figure this one out, but this line of query is disturbing for two reasons: 1) I thought the President had a warrant out for OBL - Dead or Alive, and 2) Al Queda is getting stronger not weaker in Pakistan, who is supposed to be one primary member of the W, Rove and Co.'s coalition of the willing.

But wait, there's another distrubing report, particularly in light of the push to surge new troops into harms way in Iraq:

Q There was also a report this morning that two Army combat brigades are being sent to Iraq without desert training -- the Associated Press has a story out today -- and that it's because they're being rushed to Iraq to help get the surge in place.

MR. SNOW: Again, let me stress, what happens is, a lot of times you will also do training in theaters, as well as equipping in theater. The generals have made it very clear, and military commanders have made it clear, nobody is going to go into combat activity without proper equipment and training. Period. So if things --

Q But the story flatly says that two brigades are going in without desert training in California. So that doesn't sound like --

MR. SNOW: All right, I understand.

Q -- they're getting the training.

MR. SNOW: Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq.

Oh, and not to mention, there are troops still in need of armour to support their opperations in Iraq. So, does this sound like a solid military strategy to you?

Are We Are Or Are We Not Talking to Iran and Syria? Subtitle: Going To The Tony Snow School Of Subterfuge and Obfuscation

Just the other day or so, the MSM picked up on a story line suggesting that the US was ready to actually sit down with Iran and Syria and hash things out. Some peace mongers may have jumped for joy prematurely.

Have a look at the following exchange and tell me what you think the US is really going to be doing in relation to a diplomatic solution to the Iran and Syria concerns.

I can't figure out what we are doing, have done or will do, can you?

Q I don't understand what the problem is, why you're going so far out of your way to say, what we're doing now shouldn't be interpreted as reaching out diplomatically to Iran and Syria.

MR. SNOW: Because we don't want it to be seen as a --

Q Why?

MR. SNOW: Because this is an Iraqi initiative, and the one thing -- you do not -- you know, Jim, one of the things they want is diplomatic recognition. They need to deliver. They need to deliver. You do not strengthen your hand by showing "flexibility" in the absence of activity on the part of those parties, especially when you have taken a public negotiating position on it.

It is -- what is going on is of a piece with what has been going on for years. You and I had a conversation about this and you, to your credit, had a readout of a number of these occasions in the past where there had been the presence of Iranians and U.S. negotiators at multilateral forums. This is no different in principle than those.

On the other hand, what you're defining as flexibility is -- I think what you're saying is, if the U.S. gives up on the precondition that has been agreed upon in an international forum -- then, yes, absolutely --

Q That's not what I'm saying.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm telling you what the real effect is. Because if you're saying that you want to throw away the conditions that were laid down by the P5-plus-one in dealing with the Iranians, and also the conditions that were negotiated with members of the Security Council in putting together a Chapter 7 resolution against Iran --

Q He didn't say that.

MR. SNOW: Yes, he did, because that would be the practical effect of it. The practical effect --

Q I'm not smart enough to come up with all that, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Well, then I'm trying to school you. I'm just trying to school you because -- see, what you're saying, Jim, what you're saying, "Why can't you be flexible?" -- because to meet your test of flexibility --

Q No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, why are you so invested in being -- in talking about --

MR. SNOW: -- in principle?

Q No. No. Let me finish the question. Why are you so dug in on talking tough while you're going to do something in the next month or two that you have clearly stayed away from embracing up to this point?

MR. SNOW: Wait a minute. This is where you've got it completely -- what do you mean we've stayed away? I have just read for you a whole list of occasions on which the United States --

Q The Secretary of State is going to sit down --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- and I know that some of those --

MR. SNOW: And she sat down --

Q -- and didn't even shake a hand or acknowledge in some of those situations.

MR. SNOW: She was in the meetings with them in September. Colin Powell was with them in Sharm el-Sheikh and through the Bonn process. So you --

Q Apparently, they didn't talk to each other and didn't shake hands hello. There was no -- this sounds like -- the tenor of what's about to happen sounds entirely different. And I'm just wondering --

MR. SNOW: I don't think it is. The Iraqis are putting together a meeting and it's going to be a businesslike meeting. If you're expecting suddenly new chummy relations, you've created a scenario that is not justified by the facts on the ground or the precedence.

Q One more follow on this. Could it be that you're concerned -- if you are seen as embarking on a new policy, is the concern that the old policy was wrong?

MR. SNOW: No, the concern is you guys are getting it wrong and I don't know how to get you to get it through your heads that it's not new. I mean, it's not new. What's going on here is something that has a long-seated precedence. There are multilateral forums where, if the Iranians are there, we're not going to walk out. The Iraqis -- we have always said if they invite us to this regional forum, we will be there. They invited us; we're going to be there.

There's going to be a follow-up at the ministerial level, which likely will include key diplomats from those countries, as well as from G8 countries, and Secretary of State Rice and Mr. Larajani and others will probably be in attendance. But this does not mean that there are going to be sidebars where we're having one-on-one talks with the Iranians. It doesn't mean that there's going to be any departure from past practice. It does mean that if issues come up that are going to be of interest, like EFPs or so on, then, yes, we'll certainly discuss them in the open forum.

Q You're not saying we didn't put a stamp of approval on this with the Iraqis --

MR. SNOW: Of course, we did. We're very happy that this is going on.

Q We pushed it, didn't we?

MR. SNOW: We have encouraged it.

Will this turn out well for America?

Adventures With Scooter

Here's another fun vid from Mark Fiore. Enjoy.

Which Threat Is Worse: Global Warming Or Terrorism?

After Gore and Co. won their Oscar for the Inconvenient Truth, I thought I would hunker down and actually watch it, particularly since it arrived via Netflix a couple weeks ago and I hadn't even cracked the seal. I do have to say, the movie is rather disturbing, particularly the projected levels of CO2 for the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, the video brought to my mind several very important question beyond what to do about changing our habits to reduce CO2 emissions and our dependency on and addiction to carbon based energy derivatives. Let's roll this out...drum roll please...as

Windspike's Topics For Tuesday

1. Which threat is worse: Global Warming or Terrorism?


2. Which threat resolution receives the most in terms of dollars spent to solve?


3. Which solution investment has a higher potential return on investment?

P.S. I rode my bicycle to work today. What did you do today to reduce your carbon emissions?

Don't "You See A Contradiction At All?"

Let's just let this spin cycle stand on it's own. You have got to love the W, Rove and Co's ability to duck hypocrisy. Have a look:

Q Do you see a contradiction at all in the fact that when the Brits pull out, it's a success on the ground, that's why they're pulling out; when the Democrats call for U.S. troop pullout, it's, well, the job is not finished, they want to help al Qaeda.

MR. SNOW: No. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. The Brits were pulling out a small number of forces precisely because they were able to transition authority to the Iraqis and they had succeeded. This was not withdrawing on a time line; this was not saying, we're going to leave no matter what. The goal of the Brits is to win. And the goal in some of these resolutions is to leave. There is a difference.

Okay, I can't resist - there's more fun in the Tony's briefing from Monday, and if you look closely enough, you can see him expose the W, Rove and Co for who they really are - dividers instead of uniters:

Q Can I just follow one point about the Vice President's comments, because the President said again today he's not questioning the patriotism of those who disagree. But isn't it disingenuous to go out there and say that when you've got a Vice President saying that the Democrats are basically validating al Qaeda strategy?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q And at the same time you guys say you want an honest debate about this out there -- that's an honest part of the debate?

MR. SNOW: No, actually, it's a little surprising that -- number one, the President has made it clear that he doesn't impugn patriotism. What he impugned was an idea, a bad idea. And if in taking on a bad idea, somehow you suddenly get accused of being the bad guy, that's not a way of having an open debate, that's a way of shutting off debate and saying, we don't want to talk about this.

The fact is you do have to talk about what the consequences would be, David, if the United States -- that United States Congress --

Q But you argue this point as if there's no other consequence. In other words, you guys -- you -- the Vice President makes it seem as if there's only one alternative. And Democrats say, wait a minute, this is a failed strategy and they keep asserting what the alternative is, but they've made faulty claims before. So what I'm getting at is, this administration has consistently equated critics with supporting terrorists, even after they said they weren't going to do that anymore.

MR. SNOW: No, no --

Q And that's what the President -- that's what the Vice President is saying.

MR. SNOW: No, what you've just done is you've twisted it, and this, I think, is what some of the President's critics have also done. We're trying to be very careful here. Just because we disagree with you does not mean we don't think you're patriotic. Just because we think that an idea may have bad consequences and adverse consequences for American security, it does not mean that the people who are trying to come up with those ideas do not have the noblest of motives.

We think the ideas have bad consequences. And, furthermore, in this case -- again, I refer you back to the National Intelligence Estimate, and also the Baker-Hamilton commission, which came to precisely the same conclusion. This was framed in a way that was not designed to be ugly to Nancy Pelosi or anybody else -- and I must say that the personal insults tend to flow in the direction of the President and not from the President. We do not believe engaging in mud slinging and name calling toward other -- to people on either side of the aisle.

But it is important to understand, David, that as part of the robust debate about what happens, you do have to be honest about what you think the consequences of the other people's ideas are. And that's what the Vice President was doing, and I think I've pointed out a number of times now that it certainly has pretty distinguished support, both from the intelligence community and Baker-Hamilton.

Meanwhile, The W, Rove and Co Continues On Their Taxpayer Dollar Spending Binge

In case you were wondering what The Big Dick Cheney is doing galavanting about the globe on AirForce 2, don't ask the government or you will get a big, swift, kick in the ass:

Q What's the purpose of the Vice President's trip, swing through these countries?

MR. SNOW: Well, he's visiting a number of important allies.

Q And what is he doing? I mean, is he carrying --

MR. SNOW: He's having conversations. He's had conversations with Prime Minister Howard; he has spoken with President Musharraf; he had a stop in Oman. I mean, these are things that you do. A Vice President is somebody who, serving as the President's designee and representative, is speaking with important allies in the war on terror.

Q They are rare trips for him. He doesn't travel that much.

MR. SNOW: Well, he's traveling this week.

Q Does he have a message for these people?

MR. SNOW: Well, if he does, it is not one that -- he will deliver it to them.

Q Don't you think we think we ought to know?

MR. SNOW: No. I mean -- and I'm not being glib about this -- what I'm telling you is the general message is, yes, we support you and we want to help you in the war on terror. But a lot of times the desire is for very long readouts of the candid conversations the Vice President may have with other leaders, and we do not give those out and other administrations do not give those out.

Q I don't want a readout, I just want to know what you're telling them.

MR. SNOW: What we're telling them is we're supporting them in the war on terror, and we look forward to working with them in each and every way possible to be more effective in going after those who are trying to contribute to a global terror network that is determined not only to destroy democracy in that region, but also wants to come here.

Let's see, do you trust these people to do what is right for American interests?

The demands that Americans refrain from criticism of the war and the Leader have nothing to do with trying to create unity so that troop morale remains high. What they really want is the ability to continue to lie to Americans about Iraq without being challenged.

The reason our mission in Iraq has proven to be so disastrous and corrupt is very simple -- the advocates and architects of that war are completely corrupt, inept, and deceitful. Recognizing this fact and ceasing to accord people like this respect and credibility is infinitely more important than any specific debates over particular policy or strategic questions. Everywhere Joe Lieberman goes, he should be asked by journalists why anyone should listen to anything he says, or believe anything he says, in light of his history of deceitful statements and tragically wrong assertions, beginning with his 2005 Op-Ed which today he completely repudiates while pretending he never said any of it.

These are people who are completely bereft of judgment and integrity, and their behavior has wreaked incalculable and arguably unprecedented damage on our country. Holding them accountable, and recognizing them for what they are, is critical not only for cleansing our deeply poisoned political system, but also for averting identical, or worse, tragedies in the very near future.

Tying Hands Of The W, Rove and Co.

Of course, Condi and her compadres in the W, Rove and Co are in full spin mode trying to suggest that any attempt to block their strategy in Iraq is another weapon for the terrorists. Correct me if I am wrong, but the system of checks and balances was established by our founding fathers to prevent the deployment of absolute power given how it corrupts to. Thusly, as to whether tying the hands that brought us the Iraq conflagration is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, no?

Asked if he was "tying the hands of the commander in chief," he answered in part: "Of course we're trying to tie the hands of the president and his policy. We're trying to change the policy. And if someone wants to call that 'tying the hands' instead of 'changing the policy' — yeah, the president needs a check and a balance."

This may be a day late and a trillion dollars and many thousands KIA short, but what say you, blogisphere participants?

Meanwhile, it's important to suggest one more time that, becuase the W, Rove and Co ignored the history, we are destined to repeat it:

Maude had arrived in Baghdad after a long and arduous military campaign. British forces had been fighting the Ottoman army for 2 1/2 years and had suffered one of the worst defeats of World War I in the six-month siege of the eastern city of Kut, which had ended in an ignominious surrender to the Turks in April 1916.

Having rallied from that loss and finally reached Baghdad, Maude tried to create common cause between the British army and the city's residents, whom he saw as having been oppressed by 400 years of Ottoman rule. "Your lands have been subject to tyranny," he declared in his proclamation, and "your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered." He promised that it was not "the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions." Instead, he called on residents to manage their own civil affairs "in collaboration with the political representatives of Great Britain."

Maude did not live to see the failure of his efforts to rally the people of Iraq to the British occupation. He died eight months later, having contracted cholera from a glass of milk.

After his death, British policy toward Iraq changed repeatedly as the army attempted to dominate the country and suppress the population, while the government strove to adjust to Britain's diminished role in the international system after WWI. Initially, the aim was simply to annex the territory and make it part of the Empire, run in a fashion similar to India.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Knowing What We Know Now, Was It Right To Go Into Iraq?

You can't get any more definitive than the following response that the Big Dick Cheney unleashed at yet another Australian based opportunity to fire the Presidential Propaganda Catapult:

Q Sir, looking back now you would say the strategic calculus, it was right to mount the Iraq operation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q The benefits outweigh the negatives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do, indeed, believe that.

That about sums it up.

The Big Dick, isn't going to taint his record by saying otherwise, now is he? But really, it looks as if he was interviewed by the Australian equivalent of Fox News. The reporter pitched him nice lobs, slowly, so he could swing for the bleachers. Just have a look at the arsenal unleashed on Friday. How I wish he would sit down one day under oath to answer questions pitched by Helen Thomas, please just once:

Q Sir, welcome to Australia. And thank you very much for making time to see me.
Q Of course, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about Iraq. But I wondered, sir, if I might start with Iran. And I'd like to ask you how dangerous for the world would a nuclear-armed Iran be?
Q And, sir, how far away from having nuclear weapons, do you think Iran is?
Q How bad is their interference in Iraq?
Q So would you share Senator McCain's formulation that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran?
Q Sir, on Iraq, what will success look like?
Q Sir, without providing the terrorists a date, do you have any sense of a time frame for when that might likely evolve, that situation?
Q Sir, Australia has been in Iraq and Afghanistan with the United States from the very beginning. But the troop numbers have been relatively small. Do you believe the Australian contribution has been meaningful -- militarily meaningful in both those theaters?
Q Would it be a significant setback if all Australian combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq?
Q Sir, under President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, the U.S.-Australia alliance has become very close. There's a new level of intelligence sharing and so forth. Have you been happy to participate in that process? Would you say the alliance is now closer than it was when President Bush came to office, closer than it's been perhaps?
Q The new arrangements between Australia and the U.S. in areas like intelligence, do you think they'll outlive President Bush and Prime Minister Howard? Do you think there's a new institutional closeness between the two countries that will live on?
Q Sir, you've been Vice President a long time now --
Q What's the highlight for you personally of being Vice President, your time in office?
Q Sir, are you concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism around the world, that this compromises the ability of free people to achieve the security ends that are necessary?
Q Do you think that's a realistic danger, sir?
Q Sir, looking back now you would say the strategic calculus, it was right to mount the Iraq operation?
Q The benefits outweigh the negatives?
Q And the same must apply to the U.S. allies, too, sir.
Q Finally, sir, on North Korea. Do you have any reason to be optimistic that deal will hold given North Korea's history?
Q Yes, indeed. Sir, thank you very much, indeed.

Where's the liberal bias the Reichwingers oft lament? Certainly not in any outlet where the Big Dick sits for an interview.

Meanwhile, we see a better question pitched at Friday's Whitehouse press briefing. Let's see if you are satisfied with the answer:

Q To reiterate my earlier question, since British troops are so seasoned and successful, why don't they go to Baghdad, instead of leaving town?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, they're not -- what the British intend to do, if conditions permit, is to reduce their forces in the regions they're operating in. That was the mission that the British troops were given. They see themselves as being able to fulfill that mission and be able to draw down some of those troops.

They're also looking at the possibility of increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. That's part of their mission, also, and that's a mission that we support. Our mission, the mission that U.S. forces are taking is to bring stability to Baghdad and other parts of the country.

Is there something that the British did that we are not doing? Certainly, if the Whitehouse suggests the British are drawing down troops because things are better where they opperate, maybe we can learn a thing or two. Moreover, the fact that they are withdrawing instead of shifting to assist in the W, Rove and Co. much loved "surge," is saying a whole lot.

Well, and the truth of the matter is that the "coalition of the willing," is shrinking leaving the US the Iraq albatross weighing heavy around our necks.

Q Even some of the multinational forces have interpreted it differently. The Italians were there under that, and they're gone now. The Koreans were there; they're leaving.

MR. FRATTO: That's true, but there are still a significant number of countries represented there, they comprise the multinational force, and the U.N. Security Council resolution speaks to the multinational force. It's very clear.

Well, they are talking about the 2002 UN resolution regarding Iraq. However, now that Saddam is gone, and we have installed a new government, might it not be null? Moreover, if the true definition of what is happening in Iraq is no longer a war on terror, but a policing effort in an ever growing civil war, might it also not apply?

Q Can I go back to the 2002 authorization? In fact, Saddam Hussein is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. You say it's still broad enough that it applies today, the 2002 authorization. Does that mean it also applies, then, to U.S. troops being caught or fighting in the middle of a civil war, as some people have described the situation?

MR. FRATTO: What the authorization refers to very, very specifically, is the use of force in strictly enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions. And that's the authority under which we're operating. And the U.N. Security Council resolutions call for multinational forces to support the government of Iraq and bring stability to that region. And so that's where we're operating.

And thus far, have we achieved that mission - which by the way, wasn't the original mission?

Which brings us smack back to the original question asked and answered at the top of this post by the Big Dick himself. Given what we know now, was it right to go into Iraq?

Let us know your thoughts.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

"It's Not A Fight We Can Win Using The Strategies From Other Wars."

Today, you may have learned that things are not going all too swimmingly for The Big Dick Cheney as he traipses about Australia on our Tax Dollars. You may not know what he is slinging there.

Have a look at this and ask yourself, does it look like the W, Rove and Co follows it's own advice?

We've never had a fight like this, and it's not a fight we can win using the strategies from other wars.

Really, then why does it look like we are using traditional methods to fight the war in Iraq?

An enemy that operates in the shadows, and views the entire world as a battlefield, is not one that can be contained or deterred.

Really, why would you set yourself up for that kind of failure?

An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for peaceful negotiations.

Okay, but why mention this and not announce some new kind of strategy that might be wholesale different than a "troop surge," which looks a lot like more of the same tired war strategies deployed over the last 50 years by US military operatives?

The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive -- face the threat directly, patiently, and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)

Sure, but then why did we invade Iraq when there weren't any terrorists there in the first place? Surely, it was a strategic blunder to do so rather then utilize our resources in a much more adroit and narrowly targeted plan that aimed specifically at the real terrorists?

The war on terror is more than a contest of arms, and more than a test of will. It is a battle of ideas.

Really, how does one win a battle of ideas by blowing the shit out of a country that didn't deserve it?

We now know to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied all freedom, and left to the mercy of fanatical tyrants and false prophets, that is a direct strategic concern of free nations everywhere.

If that is the main concern, then why don't we point our guns at the House of Saud? They have been persecuting their peoples living on their lands for a long time - this is not to say they treat other Saudis badly. No, they give out great sums of money from their oil gains to their people. Even so, their women can't drive, vote or go out without being completely covered. Is that freedom?

By taking the side of moderates, reformers, and advocates for democracy; by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies; we improve the chances for a lasting peace, and we advance our own security interests.

The real litmus test here is if this is actually happening in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. So far, the jury is still out on those qualifications. And the wild ass guesses these people made to drive their actions have been extremely costly.

Mission Creep, Strategic Drift, And An Unending War: Just The Recipe For Success In Iraq

Why the W, Rove and Co continues predict the future in some areas but not others is an obvious political gambit to gain support for their agenda. Here's the most recent:

The terrorists also know that as freedom takes hold, the ideologies of hatred and resentment will lose their appeal, and the advance of liberty, equality and self government in the broader Middle East will lead to a much safer world for our children and our grandchildren...We know that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. We know that if we leave Iraq before the mission is completed, the enemy is going to come after us. Having seen our interests attacked repeatedly over the years, and knowing the ambitions of the terrorists, this nation has made a decision: We will engage these enemies. We will face them far from home, so we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities.

Trouble is, that when the Big Dick Cheney suggest things are getting better in Iraq and then claim that withdrawing troops would be harmful to the war on terror, he does it in the face of the British move to withdrawal their troops. If withdrawing troops is good enough for the British, why not for our troops in harms way?

This isn’t the first reduction in the British contingent, which originally numbered 40,000. But it comes at a time of spiraling violence in Iraq and emboldened opposition in Washington to Mr. Bush’s disastrous war. It also comes as Mr. Blair is preparing to leave office, painfully aware that popular fury over the war threatens to overwhelm his entire legacy.

The British announcement has already served as the catalyst for other departures. Denmark, with 460 troops under British command, announced yesterday that it would leave by August. With the Pentagon already straining to find enough soldiers for Iraq, a troop drawdown by its most militarily capable ally can only add to the strain — and to the clamor for bringing American forces home as well.

There's nothing artificial about those deadlines. Are the terrorists more or less emboldened by the announcements? Who can say for sure, really?

What we do know is that the coalition of the willing is getting smaller and smaller. Moreover, I've always wondered this: Why is it that the coalition of the willing never included troops from nations of Arabian persuasion? If this really was a decisive struggle as the W, Rove and Co. suggest, the coalition would be getting larger and more inclusive, not shrinking and more exclusive, no? You can go to this link for a list of the actual number of troops provided by coalition members, if you are curious.

Surely, when you have trusted republicans suggesting that the Iraq war is "A train wreck," perhaps we need a new approach rather than stay the course or more of the same (read: surge).

Perhaps, it is time to turn the “Global War on Terror” off, and turn it onto what it really should be - a war on Al Qaeda. Instead, we get mission creep, strategic drift, and an unending war that will be about as successful as the never ending, republican initiated "war on drugs." Really, when the Big Dick Cheney says,

Every member of our military can be certain that America will stay on the offensive in the war on terror.

when will we know that we are done? Mr. Cheney, the American People don't issue blank checks forever, even if the entire Republican controlled congress voted to support your war at the outset. But, remember, the war in Iraq was supported before all the facts were laid on the table.

When The Big Dick Talks, Does Anyone Listen?

In the odd event that you had nothing to do this AM and tuned into the Big Dick Cheney's interview on ABC News, you would realize that nothing had changed about the tune the W, Rove and Co is singing.

Moreover, the MSM is tossing nothing but slow pitch softballs at these people.

It's a short interview so let's pick it apart:

Q So, Mr. Vice President, Tony Blair is announcing that the British are beginning their withdrawal from Iraq. Are you concerned about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they've indicated for some time now that they were going to make adjustments based on conditions on the ground. I think they believe that in southern Iraq, that Basra region where they've been most active, we have made significant progress. And I think that's one of the reasons they feel that they can draw down their forces there. I believe they're at the same time continuing to be very active in Afghanistan. And they'll continue with some forces in Iraq, but it won't be the same level it was at before.

Q But how does it look to the American people to see our most important ally begin to pull their troops out as we're actually sending more troops in?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I look at it, and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well. The focus that we've had, obviously, is Baghdad and the decision the President made to surge troops into Baghdad. The Baghdad Security Plan is based on conditions in Baghdad.

But in fact, I talked to a friend just the other day, a guy who knows the region very well, has spent a lot of years in that part of the world who had driven from Baghdad down to Basra in seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved compared to where it was a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view that they have made progress in southern Iraq, and that they can therefore afford to reduce their force posture.

So, you have an unnamed friend who thinks it's better now than it was when? Who is this friend and why don't you tell us who it is if you expect us to believe the veracity of your statement?

By the way, if it's good enough for the British to draw down troops, why can't we?

Here's another interesting question:

Q Now regarding the U.S. surge, the Congress is now on record opposing the President's policy --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the House is on record with a Sense of the Congress resolution.

Q Does it matter?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's an important debate. I think it's important to remember that this is a Sense of the Congress resolution, that it doesn't have any binding impact or effect. It's still hung up in the Senate because the Democrats haven't agreed to allow our guys to vote on a resolution they'd like to have a vote on which would be a commitment not to reduce funding for the troops when they're in the field. So there's a certain amount of politics involved, I suppose.

The important thing is that we go forward with a successful strategy to prevail in Iraq. Ultimately, this ought to be about winning in Iraq, not about posturing on Capitol Hill. And I think the important debate will come up down the road when we get time to vote, for example, on the supplemental, or if there are votes in the meantime that do have a significant impact, have a binding impact, if you will, especially with respect to appropriations.

Q Because Congressman Murtha and Speaker Pelosi have made it clear that what they would like to do is they would like to stop the surge. Can they do it? Do they have the power to stop the surge?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think so. The question is whether or not they have the votes. Jack Murtha is an old friend of mine. We've done a lot of business together over the years. When I was Secretary of Defense, he was perhaps my closest ally on Capitol Hill. Jack clearly has a different perspective. With respect to Iraq, I think he's dead wrong. I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people -- in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.

I think that's exactly the wrong course to go on. I think that's the course of action that Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha support. I think it would be a huge mistake for the country.

Well, I don't think that the strategy of Al Queda is what the Veep says it is. Moreover, how is drawing down troops the same thing as quitting? The British are drawing down troops, are they quitting?

How can such a complex geopolitical situation resting on a foundation over a thousand of years of hatred be boiled down to such a simple, dualistic perspective - "they win when we quit." Really, just because you disagree with some one doesn't make you right, Mr. Vice President.

To answer to the question as to if it matters, no, the opinion of the people don't matter on iota; Not to the W, Rove and co.

Q Now you just made a very clear statement in your speech saying the American people do not support a policy of retreat.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I believe that.

But isn't drawing down troops different than retreat?

Q Is that policy that we hear from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi -- from other Democrats, is that a policy of defeat?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

A swing and a hit! Wow, where is the liberal media bias when you need it?

Need another to swing for the bleachers, Mr. Cheney?

Q So the American people don't stand with the Democrats, what the Democrats are trying to do?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think the American people want to see first and foremost success in Iraq. I think the preference would be -- even those who are not happy with the current situation, given a choice would prefer a situation in which we succeed in Iraq in terms of being able to deal with the security situation, turn things over to the Iraqis so the Iraqis can govern themselves. But I think to do what Nancy Pelosi is suggesting -- and she's made it very clear on many occasions that she, in fact, wants to get out -- that that's exactly the wrong medicine. It's the wrong course of action. It will do nothing but encourage the terrorists. And it will have the devastating long-term consequences in the global war on terror.

You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield, if you will, and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters, if you will, to continue the fight. So the thing we need to do is to let the President's strategy have an opportunity to work. The Senate just confirmed Dave Petraeus unanimously -- not a single vote against him -- and then you've got a lot of senators turning around saying, but, we don't want to give you the resources you need to do the job we've asked you to do for us. So I do think that the important thing here is that we support the troops and we support the strategy, that we give it a chance to work, and that we not lose sight of the fact that our ultimate objective has to be victory.

Supporting the troops, in my book is qualitatively different than supporting the strategy. In fact, and I've said this before, you can have absolutely no confidence in this Administration and their handling of the war and still support the troops.

But the Big Dick Cheney would have you believe and think those two notions are one and the same.

Q And I wanted to ask you -- you probably heard John McCain again come out and say that your friend Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the worst Secretary of Defense ever. What do you make of that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld.

Q So what's your take on where Secretary Rumsfeld fits in?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think Don's a great Secretary [sic]. I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He and John McCain had a number of dust-ups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq -- other issues that were involved. John's entitled to his opinion. I just think he's wrong.

Well, that's a wild speculation - that Rummy would get an apology from McCain.

Q And I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify, Senator McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.

Q What did he say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology which I was happy to accept.

Can we check that with Mr. McCain? Would he support the Veep's story here? Simply because the Veep says it's so, doesn't make it so.

Where is the investigative journalism and the veracity check?

Q Another senator that's been involved in this debate is, of course, Senator Clinton. Now, Senator Clinton has been trying to figure out whether or not she should apologize for her vote in favor of the resolution. She has just come out and said that she is not going to apologize for that vote, that if people want to hold that against her, they should find other people to vote for. Do you admire that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- I'm not going to get involved in the presidential campaign. The President and I have both sworn off commenting on the give and take of the campaign in both parties. It's already well underway, and so I'll withhold comment for now.

Q Mr. Vice President, appreciate it.

Well, are you satisfied here? There are many other questions that could have been asked that were not.

How I wish that Helen Thomas was conducting this interview, but Cheney's too big a chicken hawk to face her, no doubt. Where are the questions about his unwillingness to testify in Scooter's case? Where are the commitments to get him to talk about the leaks when the trial comes to a close, given his unwillingness to talk during an on-going legal proceeding?

The list of unasked and unanswered questions is extensive. I remain unrequited. How about you?

Rummy, Down But Not Out

Remember Donald Rumsfeld?

Q John McCain is out there saying that Donald Rumsfeld may go down as one of the worst Defense Secretaries in history. Is that something you agree with? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: I think on this one --

Q The Vice President has called him one of the -- if not, the best, I think.

MR. SNOW: Look, we think Donald Rumsfeld was an enormously consequential and effective Secretary of Defense, and somebody who led to the transformation of the Department of Defense. Senator McCain holds a different point of view. The thing that's important to us right now is that Senator McCain is a strong supporter of the President's position on the way forward in Iraq and somebody who has been an eloquent voice and a reliable leader on the issue, and we appreciate it.

Consequential? Sure, but effective at what is a better question.

Well, speaking of Rummy, I heard via the blogisphere somehwere (apologies for not having the appropriate link) that aparently, he's been given the boot, but he's still got an office in the Pentagon and a staff sponsored by yours and my tax dollars. Sounds like he is down, but gets the usual royal treatment by the W, Rove and Co for bad performance.

When Is Good News For Terrorists Also Good News For The President?

Just found this article and thought it would be bad news for the W, Rove and Co. Or, is it good news as it could be used as leverage to argue for more military spending? Funny. I never thought that good news for terrorists might also be good news for the W, Rove and Co, but perhaps it can:

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

Misunderestimating The Power of Prediction

I've said this a long while back: Just because the President says something doesn't make it true. Indeed, it appears that the W, Rove and Co continues to speculate the future when it leverages their political agenda. Have a look at this wild prediction:

This week's voting gave the world a glimpse of democracy's vigor. The next votes should provide unmistakable assurance of this nation's resolve in achieving success, supporting the cause of democracy, and stopping terrorist forces in their ultimate aim of bringing their violence to our shores.

Again we see that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence of terrorism. Why, indeed, then is it that the terror threat level goes up when we happen to catch wind of yet another plot or catch a particularly bad guy? I do not believe the president or his pals when he suggests more of the same is going to produce a better result than already obtained. How about you?

Imitation Is the Most Sincere Form Of Flattery

They say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It looks like Fox News can't resist replicating a winning formula.

Even so, I don't know that the market for a conservative slanted "Daily Show" rip off will fly; particularly with support from that reichwing nut hag, Ann Coulter. Why any one continues to pay her to speak is beyond me.

Urging viewers to tune into to the rest of the show, Coulter said, "If you don't, we'll invade your countries, kill your leaders and convert you to Christianity."

Ha, ha, ha...so funny, our collective sides are splitting open with the blood of innocent Iraqi's pouring out of the American soul.

Pelosi Stands Up As Cheney And Bush Step Down

Now, doesn't that look like a lovely title? Perhaps I'm making a prediction that will come to fruition some time in the very near future, but I get ahead of myself.

By now, you all know that Cheney and Libby have taken the Chicken Hawk route in defending their actions - they ain't goin' ta talk about it. Makes me wonder what beyond the obvious they are trying to hide? Dirty tricks aside, I'm certain they owe the American people an explanation: Scratch that - they owe us an honest recount of the facts as they happened. No doubt, the truth is beyond their capacity at this point as they haven't dabbled in it in a great long while. That's one problem with living a lie; you never know what is true.

Take that one step further and we see the trouble with lying to get one's way that the president experienced today. Specifically, he's lost all credibility with the American people. So much so, that when he suggest that a vote against a surge doesn’t support the troops, he has forgotten what it really is: A vote of no confidence in him. I support the troops, for sure. But I most certainly don't support the president nor have any confidence that he can do the job.

Let's have a look at his press conference from Valentine's Day to assess the problem a bit further. First off, we see that a man who cries wolf too often is often left holding a megaphone and nothing more. Why else would he answer a perfectly good question that he cannot answer with a lousy question?

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

Well, that really isn't the question now is it? The question is can we believe you after all the mistakes you and your administration has made in the bungle that is Iraq?

Why should we trust an administration that isn't even supported by people that we usually see singing their praises?

Q Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, "It's a bad, disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart." This is from a man you repeatedly praised for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree -- strongly disagree with his assessment.

Really, but how do you know? But we should have the utmost confidence in our President, don't you think?

Have a look at this exchange as Helen Thomas whacks W over the head with her cast iron skillet and he will give us the reason why we shouldn't have as much confidence in this president. He just doesn't know:

Q Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And, also, you talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.

First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.

Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals. There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.

And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.

The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful.

Q Do you believe it's a civil war, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment -- it's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment. I haven't been there; you have, I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose judgment I trust, and they would not qualify it as that. There are others who think it is. It is, however, a dangerous situation, thereby requiring action on my part.

Listen, I considered several options -- one, doing nothing, and that if you don't believe the situation was acceptable, then you should do something. And I didn't believe the situation was acceptable. Secondly, I could have listened to the advice of some and pulled back and hoped for the best. I felt that would be extraordinarily dangerous for this young democracy, that the violence in Baghdad could escalate mightily and then spill out across the country, creating chaos, vacuums into which extremism would flow; or make the decision I made, which is to reinforce the troops that were on the ground, to help this Iraqi government and security force do what they're supposed to do.

There is a large difference between could, would and should. The fact is, I don't believe that he is listening to the right people, nor does he know first hand. He admits the latter. So, the fundamental question for the blogisphere today is thus...let's call this...drum roll

Windspike's Valentine's Day Political Questions

1. If we were to take a vote of confidence in this president and his administration today, how would you vote and why?


2. Should W and Cheney step down today or by the end of the week at the lattes?


3. Would you like to see Pelosi stand up and take the helm as the first female President of the United States?