Leave Or Stay? More Dualistic Political Artwork From The President - Subtitle: The Difference Between Tactics And Strategy

I love Martha's approach to questioning the president almost as much as I enjoy reading Helen's questions. Today, Marth sets up a great question. Let's have a look at the President's "Answer."

Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?

This is a fairly straight forward question. A very good one at that. Let's see what the President has to say:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.

Q I'm talking about strategy --

Ah, I see, diverson won't work. Have another try Mr. President:

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

Still doesn't answer the question, now does he. Can he prove his his points? Are we shoveling a dream down the Iraqi's throats? Did that "dream" exist before we got there or did he forget that we were supporting Saddam long ago to have him enforce his dream on the Iraqi people? Leaving will "embolden extremists?" I say, prove it.

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

there's another great leap. We weren't in Iraq when they attacked us before, but there is no way you can prove that being there stops them from attacking here. Or if you move the troops elsewhere, say to where OBL is and "bring him to justice" that we couldn't stop "terrorism" by means of a different, but workable strategy...but the W, spills on:

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.

Suzanne.

Q Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

See, you didn't answer the question but continue to use these venues to push your own political agenda, Mr. President. You don't want to hear what the real answer is: That the W, Rove and Co strategy is not working well, not by a long shot.

Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government has been in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.

Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.

This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq.

More speculation from the presdident...and no real answer for Martha and the American people go unrequited.

The difference between tactics and strategy are important. More importantly, staying the course in a failed strategy does not mean abandoning the overall vision for the mission.

"Seersucker Is Coming Back," The Trouble With Lebanon/Israel, And Other Tips From W

While everyone else is being rather serious in today's presidential press briefing, W yucks it up a bit. Even so, Helen (and I love her, in case you haven't gathered that already) whips out her cast iron skillet and hits georgie over the head with a very tough question. But let's unpack his reply and see what we think about it:

Helen. (Laughter.) What's so funny about me saying "Helen"? (Laughter.) It's the anticipation of your question, I guess.

Q Israel broke its word twice on a truce. And you mentioned Hezbollah rockets, but it's -- Israeli bombs have destroyed Lebanon. Why do you always give them a pass? And what's your view on breaking of your oath for a truce?

So, we see, the point of the question is thus: If you can't even control your allies, how can you stop millitant terrorists?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I like to remind people about how this started, how this whole -- how the damage to innocent life, which bothers me -- but, again, what caused this.

Q Why drop bombs on --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish -- let -- ma'am. Ma'am, please let me finish the question. It's a great question to begin with. The follow-up was a little difficult, but anyway. (Laughter.) I know you're waiting for my answer, aren't you, with bated breath.

Ah, the President complements Helen for her question - finally, a point I can agree with him on - it is indeed a great question and one taht he will have trouble answering. So, he inserts a little "humor" to ease us into the non-answer he is about to deliver:

This never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation. From the beginning, Helen, I said that Israel, one, has a right to defend herself, but Israel ought to be cautious about how she defends herself. Israel is a democratically elected government. They make decisions on their own sovereignty. It's their decision-making that is -- what leads to the tactics they chose.

But the world must understand that now is the time to come together to address the root cause of the problem. And the problem was you have a state within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.

And that's why it's very important for all of us, those of us who are involved in this process, to get an international force into Lebanon to help the Lebanese government achieve some objectives. One is their ability to exert control over the entire country; secondly is to make sure that the Hezbollah forces don't rearm, don't get arms from Syria or Iran through Syria, to be able to continue to wreak havoc in the region.

So, did he answer the question? I don't think so. What do you think?

Meanwhile, he lets loose some more presidential witicisms, which is wear we find out that seersucker is coming back in:

Let's see -- we'll finish the first line here. Everybody can be patient.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) It's kind of like dancing together, isn't it? (Laughter.)

Q Yes, kind of. (Laughter.)

Q Very close quarters.

THE PRESIDENT: If I ask for any comments from the peanut gallery I'll call on you. (Laughter.) By the way, seersucker is coming back. I hope everybody -- (laughter.) Never mind.

Q Kind of the Texas county commissioner look. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Martha. Sorry.

I see, so we get more comedy per American Taxpayer dollar spent from this President - but really, if I wanted to watch comedy, I would have turned on Jon Stewart.

Blog on all

Are People Saying What The President Says They Are Saying

I had to chuckle at the title of this post, but it goes to the heart of a deep problem for the American people regarding the W, Rove and Co. Simply this: If the President says something, many people don't question it.

You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people, saying, withdraw now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen to the -- and answer to the will of the people.

Maybe the President and I travel in different circles and listen to different people, but most of those who disagree with the Iraqi conflagration ignighted by W I know are not saying pull out now, but let's plan (strategicaly, and wisely) to pull out sooner than later. There is a substantial difference between the two points of view.

Really, we have to ask ourselves, is what the President saying what others are advocating as a solution for Iraq? Or, as I believe it is more likely, is the President saying what he wants you to believe his opponents are thinking? The latter is a political parlor trick, no doubt designed by the Rove component of the W, Rove and Co.

I say it's time for us to stand up and not allow W to distort what opponents of his illegitimate war in Iraq are saying and meaning when they say "staying the course," is not the right way to go.

A Racist Republican Senator From Virginia: Should We Be Surprised?

Well, I hadn't heard this until I clicked on an article from today's LA Times. Here's the question that you should mull over as you read through these snips: Will this be enough to get him voted out in November?

Here's what a smiling Allen said to his laughing supporters Aug. 11: "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great…. Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." The object of Allen's ridicule was in fact born in the United States, but the senator's Confederate-tinted understanding of this country apparently has no room for people of color.

I had never heard of this term before this article, but at it's best:

in the words of Allen's own spinmeisters, the Virginia Republican and putative 2008 presidential contender was just playfully combining the words "Mohawk" (to mischaracterize the cameraman's haircut) and, well, "caca." As an Allen staffer explained to the National Journal's Hotline blog, he was "an annoyance."

At it's worst:

is that "macaca" is an Americanized version of the similarly pronounced French racial slur "macaque," which literally refers to a species of stub-tailed monkey, but is figuratively used to insult North Africans and other people with dark skin. It's the French equivalent of "darkie," making all decent people who hear it shudder. Allen's mother is French, from the North African country of Tunisia. He speaks the language well.

Now will this get him voted out of office? Given that he is in Virginia, it's hard to say, saddly. That the man is a bigot may work in his favor - and there is no shortage of bigotry supported by members of the GOP.

"The Unstoppable Power of Freedom" Or Is It Another Political Ruse To Trick The American People And Garner Political Support?

Well, the rhetoric in this week's Presidential address is as thick with Rovian red, white and blue ideological fervor as ever.

The way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve. But America's security depends on liberty's advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom.

I am not altogether certain what type of sacrifice the President himself has made in this struggle. It appears to me that he has made very little sacrifices of his own.

From the people's stand point, we have been requested to shoulder an undo burden and unfairly distributed amount this sacrifice on his behalf: from the enormous debt accrued that will weigh heavy on unborn generations of taxpayers, to W's willingness to sacrifice other lives for his cause, among other things. I just am not seeing what sacrifices the W, Rove and Co have made that equate with those shouldered by ordinary, hard working and honorable citizens of this country (not to mention the civilians killed in Iraq at his behest).

Does any one have some insight into what sacrifices this President has made for his "war on terror?"

The Point Of Terrorism Is...

Just out of curiosity, I have some questions for folk in the Blogisphere that spun from some words I read from this week's radio address by W (which does anyone listen to those by the way?).

Here's his quote and I'll follow with my questions:

Yet these young democracies are still fragile, and the forces of terror are seeking to stop liberty's advance and steer newly free nations to the path of radicalism. The terrorists fear the rise of democracy because they know what it means for the future of their hateful ideology.

Is it me or is the W, Rove and Co assigning too much credibility to the terrorist agenda? Moreover, I thought that, really, there was only one point to terrorism. This leads me to...drum roll please...

Windspike's Sunday Sentence Completion Contemplation

• Finish this sentence and explain: "The point of terrorism is..."

Which Global War Are We Winning?

So, how long have we been at the "war on drugs?" If I recall correctly, it was launched by another famous republican after his wife said, "Just say,'no.'" That was round about the early 1980s which, by the way, are becoming ever so trendy. Click on your itunes and pop up Journey's Escape album while you contemplate this post (Just a small town girl, livin' in a lonely world...but I digress). So, this brings me to our first question: Are we winning the "war on drugs?" Uh, maybe not:

The latest chapter in America’s long war on drugs — a six-year, $4.7 billion effort to slash Colombia’s coca crop — has left the price, quality and availability of cocaine on American streets virtually unchanged.

Now we know who the W, Rove and Co took their lessons on effectively spending taxpayer dollars from. Billions and billions of dollars spent, with no change in the status of the global condition said "war" was ignited to stop. Sounds a lot like the global "war on terror," no? This leads me to....drum roll please....

Windspike's Weekend Blogger Challenge

1. Which war has been more effective, The "War On Drugs" or the "War on Terror?"


2. Explain


3. What are the real reasons these wars were started?


4. Who are the real winners and losers vis-à-vis the execution of these wars?

What's On Your List Of Things To Do?

Dean Karnazes is certifiably nutty. He's done 100 mile races. He's said that's not far enough and run over 200 mile races, alone, and up to over 300 miles at a pop. And he has said that's not enough and done marathons in Antarctica and a variety of other locations.

Now, if you view yahoo's most emailed stories, many people are aware of his next challenge...running 50 marathons in as many days. Not only that, but he is dragging his family along for the ride in their Winnebago. I am going to offer a contrary opinion to most that would view this as a set up for an amazing accomplishment. Sure, it is for the average person, but for Karno, this will be like licking frosting off your birthday cake.

Given Dean's training regimen and natural ability to run far and long, I think 26 miles a day is going to be a romp in the park for him. Not only that, but the rest he gets in between races will be like gassing up the NASCAR for another 25 laps. He's going to appear rested and ready to rumble.

On an aside note, I didn't notice in the article if he is doing this for only personal gain/accomplishment or notoriety, getting paid by his sponsors to do it (he is sponsored by Northface among others), or is he raising money for a worthy cause? Indeed it a combination of all three:

Yet beyond the running experience, the mission of the Endurance 50 is to encourage people of all ages to get out and do what they can, to enjoy the outdoors, and to make physical wellbeing an important priority in life. The event is a benefit for Karno Kids, an organization committed to reversing the unfortunate trend in childhood and youth inactivity and poor diet. The numbers are staggering, fully one-third (25 million) of children and teens in the United States are overweight. Together, we can make a difference and take back the heath of our nation, one step at a time.

At Least The President Didn't Call The Judge An Activist: Subtitle - Toss Another Civil Liberties Brick Onto The War On Terror Conflagration

Maybe W saves such "derogatory" labels as "Bleeping Activist Judge" for behind closed doors or when he thinks the microphone is turned off. But, at least he didn't use the phrase in today's unscripted speechifying.

What we see here is another case of "simply because the President believes warrant-less spying on Americans is legal" doesn't make it Constitutionally appropriate behavior. I would have to agree with Diane Feinstein when she says that we must ensure that the President and his pals understand that they are not above the law.

You know, two things strike me here as operating in the presidential psyche at this point. First, the whole ideology stemming from this self professed commitment to a "culture of life" has W confused. This profound, cult-like attachment to a specific ideology has confounded his thinking about what priorities are most important to the American people. He thinks that it is possible to stop people from dying or being killed, by terrorists or other means. This leads him to subjugate constitutionally protected liberties and freedoms in a devils bargain trade for what he thinks will yield universal "protection" of the people. In doing so, W fails to see that every inch of our civil liberties and freedoms that are discarded as necessary collateral damage into the "war on terror" conflagration is another mile of victory for the terrorists.

Secondly, we see time and again, that the President dualistically believes that the means justify the ends. That is, even as he works to erode the very Constitutional foundation upon which our country rests, he truly believes that it is in our best interest. Like the new embassy being built in Iraq, we shall all suffer when we find out post-W that he has reduced that foundation to quicksand.

Here's the Q & A that prompted my thinking above. What say you?

Q Mr. President, the federal ruling yesterday that declared your terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional -- the judge wrote that it was never the intent of the framers to give the President such unfettered control. How do you respond, sir, to opponents who say that this ruling is really the first nail in the coffin of your administration's legal strategy in the war on terror?

THE PRESIDENT: I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. You might remember last week working with the -- with people in Great Britain, we disrupted a plot. People were trying to come and kill people.

This country of ours is at war, and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war. The judge's decision was a -- I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld.

I made my position clear about this war on terror. And by the way, the enemy made their position clear yet again when we were able to stop them. And I -- the American people expect us to protect them, and therefore I put this program in place. We believe -- strongly believe it's constitutional.

And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling. And so I made my position clear. It would be interesting to see what other policymakers -- how other policymakers react.

Presidential Confusion

No one would suggest that the Israel/Lebanon situation is not confusing, but you would expect a sitting President to be a bit more clear about the situation. Unscripted, George Bush shows us his real feathers, and they seem ruffled to me. Here's the question from one of the privileged few that got to query the President:

Q Mr. President, on Lebanon, how can you say that Hezbollah has suffered such a bad defeat when it's rebuilding -- helping rebuild in southern Lebanon, and it remains intact? And secondly, are you disappointed at all about France's decision to scale back its support of the international force?

It's the last two paragraphs that have me convinced that the president is just as, if not more, confused about the situation as we are. Certainly, if you can figure out what he is trying to say here, you win today's blogger prize for presidential interpretation :

...Hezbollah, they're pretty comfortable there in south Lebanon. They're now going to find themselves not only that which caused the destruction, but they'll find themselves with now a Lebanese army, with U.N. help, making it clear they won't have the safe haven necessary -- that they think is necessary to launch attacks.

The issue is broader than just Hezbollah. The issue is also Syria and Iran, two nations that supported Hezbollah in its attempts to create enough havoc so that -- I guess people feel like they could take political advantage of the situation, we just can't let them do it.

I see. How would you complete the following sentence? The president's remarks offer more evidence that we are "fill-in-the-blank" the "war on terror?"

It's Handy When The Press Secretary Points Out That The President Is Fabricating His Own Reality

Okay, the geeks out there are going to love this one. In Thursday's press breifing, Tony the Snow-job sides with the Budget Office, which has a contrarian perspective to the President's rose colored glasses look at the deficit. Have a look:

Q The budget deficit: CBO estimate out today says, Yes, it's coming down to $260 billion this year, but then will jump to $286 billion next year. And then over the next decade, the total deficit will be $1.76 trillion, even if the tax cuts aren't made permanent. Aren't things going in the wrong direction with the President?

Zoiks, those numbers are grim. But is the President slightly worried? Nope:

MR. SNOW: No, I'll tell you --

Q As he talks to his economic advisors, is he looking at spending cuts or tax increases to close the gap?

MR. SNOW: The answer is the President is working on keeping the economy growing, and the other thing is, go back and take a look at CBO estimates from last year or the year before. Go back to the Clinton years. It's an inexact science, and I'm not going to get into that whole methodology.

The President is confident that we remain on a path to cut the deficit in half by his stated deadline, if not before, and the way you do that is by promoting government growth. The deficit declined in the '90s because we had a booming economy, and as the economy continues to boom, you're going to find revenues coming in and enabling us to close the deficit. The President still believes that.

Well, now we know that simply because the President uses some facy rhetoric and belives something, it won't necessarily become true now will it? Here's where Tony commits rhetorical suicide again:

Q So is the CBO wrong in projecting that the deficit will increase next year?

MR. SNOW: Who knows? The problem with it, it's like asking if the weatherman is right about next Tuesday. Economic prediction is always inexact. You use this as benchmarks for guiding policy. As you know we do our own estimates, and I'll stick with the OMB estimates. And I will let our number crunching guys, our econometricians go through the methodologies with you. I'm just not competent to do so.

I think he meant CBO, or is the OMB different? Perhaps, Even so so, is it the President or the CBO that is correct? Tony correctly sides with the geeks and thusly proves the President has his head up his ass in thinking that his policy is going to be good for America.

If No One Knows When The Iraq Mission Will Be Accomplished, Why Did They Hang The Banner?

Just wondering, if nobody knows when we will be finished in Iraq, why did they hang the Mission Accomplished banner as the President was flown into the aircraft carrier so long ago?

Q Tony, you mentioned, the obvious ultimate goal of getting mission accomplished. When is that going to happen?

MR. SNOW: You tell me. I mean, again -- as I've also said, you don't do this by a clock. The President has practiced strategic patience. The term "The Long War" has been used. If you can tell me when terrorists are suddenly going to turn their swords into plowshares, we'll settle upon that as the date.

Q Is this years in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: I mean. I really don't know. I honestly -- I don't think anybody knows.

This is just the kind of confidence you would expect the democrats to exude wouldn't you? But, might I remind you, these are Republicans in charge here. And what do we get? More security? Do you feel safer today than you did five years ago?

"Soul Searching" And Other Lies Told By The W, Rove And Co

Okay, I love Helen Thomas. She is one of the smartest people in the Whitehouse press pool. But it is astonishing how big a lie Tony the Snow job will toss at the American people in order to asuage the guilt they should be feeling about Iraq, but undoubtedly are not. Have a gander at Thursday's press briefing dish of horse manure:

Go ahead, Helen.

Q After a week of soul-searching -- I mean, not soul-searching -- I mean briefings the President has had, has he done any soul searching in terms of policy towards Iraq? The highest fatalities in July and so forth, so there is an increase in violence. Are any policies changing?

Good question. We don't necessarily care much about how much soul searching a man can do especially since it appears that his soul is eternaly tarnished and destined for hell. What we are really concered is this: Is the president going to take us in a different direction in Iraq, are we headed straight down the same path to the toilet bowl flushing us down with the Iraqis?

MR. SNOW: Well, I've tried to -- the answer is first without -- I will -- without having cleared this with the President, I think it's safe to say that any President in a time of war does constant soul-searching because he understands the human toll of sending people into harm's way. And any President who has held the office will tell you the same thing. It is a deeply personal and very difficult thing to do.

I don't think it was altogether that difficult for the president at all. Just witness the amount of vacation days he has had since he took office...clearing brush, mountain biking, etc...

But Tony continues:

The other thing the President does is -- he wants realistic assessments of what's going on, and he wants the ability to adjust. It is an absolute fact that, in a time of war, you're going to try things that don't work. And what you have to do is to figure out how to define the proper formulation of things that are going to work.

The President is not going to walk away from Iraq. It is central to winning the war on terror. It is central to sending a message to terrorist organizations. It is central to creating a democracy in the region.

What happens when the realistic assessments goes contrary to current policy? It seems like there is a disjuncter between what is happening on the ground and the W, Rove and Co's policy and action pursued in Iraq if you ask me.

The discourse continues:

Q Willing to sacrifice?

MR. SNOW: Well, as they continue to exhume and now put together exhibits in Iraq of the hundreds of thousands who were killed by Saddam Hussein, there is still the hope that was expressed by more than 12.5 million people who went out and voted at some risk to their lives, but they think it's worthwhile.

And if we could do this in a totally bloodless way, that would be great, but terrorists, as I pointed out before, they look at human carnage as a political asset. We look at it the different way. We mourn the loss of lives. We don't look at that as a way of advancing our ideology. We look upon every human life as possessing unique and independent dignity, and we wish that none of them had to be sacrificed, and we hope that we're precisely working toward the day in which you're not going to have to worry about mass graves in Iraq, where you're not going to have to worry about sectarian violence, and that the primary concern is whether their taxes are too high and whether they're getting what they need from their government.

Here's the problem and how the lies unravel for me:

• I don't think the mourn the loss of lives. The President hasn't attended a single funeral for some one who was KIA in Iraq.


• I don't think they look upon every human life as possessing unique and independent dignity. How many Iraqi civilians have been killed in the name of this political process?


• I think the mentioning of mass graves in Iraq is a diversion.

There are many more things to be concerned about as the W, Rove and Co digs themselves a rhetorical grave, but what I hope for most of all is a time when we are no longer looking for these people to take us out of this mess...for they are expert at getting us into messes, but fools for getting us out.

Here's the proof that we are doomed under this administration:

It's just not possible. But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you've got to stay the course.

The Iraqi Wack-A-Mole: Or Is it Operation Together Forward?

I just love this metaphor for how things are going in Iraq. Sucks for Iraqis and sucks for us, but it's funny nonetheless - Terrorist pop up some place every time you wack one down.

I don't konw about you, but I'm getting a little tired of the euphamistic naming of US operations in Iraq. Have a look at what the latest incarnation is:

Q Earlier you said that violence is down 80 percent in one Baghdad neighborhood. John McCain has complained about a whack-a-mole taking place across the -- cross-country -- you've heard of that.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q It seems like it's whack-a-mole now on the local level because by all accounts Baghdad is -- by most accounts, Baghdad is worse than it's ever been, as far as the security situation. So how is this not whack-a-mole on the local level?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me ask you a question. Is every time that we have a success going to be called whack-a-mole? Because if that's the case -- no, I think what you have now is we had to retool Operation Together Forward. It wasn't producing the desired results. I'm not saying that suddenly everything is sunny and helpful and bright, but I am saying that you do have some successes. And it's quantifiable, and you can call Major General Caldwell or others in Baghdad and they'll give you all the good numbers on this stuff. But there has been progress. But there's a lot to be done.

The fact is, yes, al Qaeda is going to scatter and run, and there's going to be the need to pursue them. Now, in response to that, what have we been doing? We've been training up Iraq forces. We've also been chasing down al Qaeda independently. And so it is not as if it's a static situation where we just have a bunch of people here. We have people who are gathering intelligence throughout the country, both U.S., Iraqi -- all three and coalition forces, and they are responding.

So Senator McCain, I'm sure, will get fully briefed on the latest developments, and I'll let him give his own assessment in the future. There's always the danger that you think that you're chasing around an elusive enemy. And there's no doubt that some guys are going to run and hide and try out something else.

What they have been finding out is that the Iraqi forces which have been standing up are becoming more capable and more combat-ready and more able to address this. The United States, in and of itself, cannot be chasing all over Iraq for each and every piece of insurrection. That is inappropriate.

But what we are doing is we're trying to target resources and operations in such a way as to go after the key sources of terror and secure some of the key places. I think Senator McCain would agree -- in fact, I believe he said as much, you've got to secure Baghdad.

Yes, indeed. We have got to secure Baghdad...but how many years is that going to take, Mr. Snow? How many billions of US taxpayer dollars and GI dead? Worth it? Fuck no! Sorry for the obscenity, but I'm not a happy carnival attendee at this point.

Meanwhile Good News Keeps Pouring In From Iraq

Well, okay, it's not good news, but hey - at least the Whitehouse is admiting that they are floundering about in Iraq:

There were reports that an unnamed military expert had received briefings at the White House that we are continuing alternatives other than democracy in Iraq. It's just not true. The article does note, however, that there has been increased violence in Iraq in recent months, and that is absolutely true.

Who cares if Tony the Snow job bends the truth? Maybe it was a named military expert. Remember, violoence in Iraq is on the rise. Can that be good for Iraq? Can that be good for the American people? Nope.

Remember:

We had testimony from General Abizaid last month; ones of the things he noticed is, I think he said the sectarian violence had been worse than he'd ever seen it, and that if trends continued, it could place Iraq on a path towards civil war.

Like they are not on that road already.

NSA Spying Illegal Sounds About Right To Me, But Here's What The W, Rove And Co Thinks

In case you have been hiding under a rock, you may not have noticed that a Detroit judge has ruled in favor of the American people and decided to put a halt to the illeagal NSA spying program sponsored and addored by the W, Rove and Co.

This is good news, but here's what the W, Rove and Co had to say:

Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people. Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. We couldn't disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court's ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.

United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That's what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President's most solemn duty to ensure their protection.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The Terrorist Surveillance Program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program.

Gee Wiz Mr. Bush, if it's so effective, why do we need to have such a great presence in Iraq? Who cares if it is effective, and by whose definition we might well ask, if it actually violates the very feedom you suggest it is designed to protect? Hypocritical morons runing the show in the whtiehouse is a fair assessment.

"But Clinton Got A Blowjob"

A friend of mine sent this link to a fun tune by Eric Schwartz...remmeber, "Clinton got a blowjob..."

Enjoy.

Meanwhile...17 Folk Get Their Presidential Pardons

Just wondering who they are. Any one know?

The President today granted pardons to 17 individuals, none of whom are still serving time, but these are largely for people who have served their time and this helps expunge their records.

Ah, The International Game Of Tit For Tat

I didn't catch wind of this until today's press briefing, but it seems the Iranian government is getting into the cartoon business:

Q Are you commenting on Iran's international holocaust cartoon contest?

MR. SNOW: No, and I -- no, I'm not.

Not sure what to make of it, but I hope that they are as funny as some of the Mohamed cartoons that came out a while back. Really, I don't know if it is possible to come up with something funny about the holocaust. We'll the judge of that, I'm sure. That is, if the MSM has the balls to publish the comics.

When Death Tolls: Does It Make Sense to Label Iraq At Civil War?

Helen Thomas whips out her cast iron skillet and hits Tony the Snow job over the head again today in the press briefing. I love her.

She has a legit question: At 100 people a day killed in Iraq, at what point do we actually classify the Iraq Conflagration that the W, Rove and Co started as a Civil war?

Sure it doesn't look like our civil war, or any one elses for that matter. But ours was over 100 years ago and the weapons were quite different then.

Helen.

Q Is there a civil war going on in Iraq? And is the President frustrated with the lack of American public support for Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, number one, there is not a civil war going on. I was on the phone earlier today with Major General Caldwell in Baghdad --

Okay, stop right there Tony. Why are you calling Generals in Baghdad in the first place? Hmmm, is he just trying to get his spin correct?

Q One hundred people a day?

MR. SNOW: He understands. And the other thing that's happening is that there has been -- there has been some improvement at least in the situation on the ground, slightly. Yes, you have a number of sectarian violence operations going on, but you've also seen now in targeted neighborhoods in Baghdad, there has been a notable decrease in violence in three of the neighborhoods that have been targeted in the last week, and that's obviously a promising sign; that's not a victory lap.

So, now Tony has given him the responsiblity of speaking for Generals in Iraq? I thought he was the president's spokesmodel, not speaking for any one else except the Whitehouse, no? Oh, and "Not a victory lap?" Well, no of course not, we already have the "Mission Accomplished" banner hung on the victory boat (well, okay aircraft carrier) to provide that photo op.

But I digress...Tony continues:

Prime Minister Maliki today went outside the Green Zone to talk about Iraqi forces -- to talk to Iraqi forces, not only to thank them for their efforts, but to encourage them. And it's significant to note that the one thing he said was that Arabs, Kurds, Christians, Sunni, Shia and Turkmen should be united with each other to form a country united to defeat terrorism. And I think what you saw there, at least according to General Caldwell, was a very passionate speech delivered by the elected head of Iraq.

Everybody knows that sectarian violence is a problem, and that extremists, especially in the Sunni and Shia camps, are doing everything they can to disrupt it. And we're keenly aware of that. For those who argue that the administration does not react, as a matter of fact, there is constant adjustment in terms of strategy and tactics to meet that challenge, because it's a very real challenge. And it's one that Prime Minister Maliki is working with our forces in the field to try to deal with, because he has to. And we know that, we understand it. We also understand that those who want Iraq to fail as a democracy will do everything they can, they're going to do everything in their power. And what we have to do is to demonstrate the determination and commitment to see it through.

As the President has said -- the President knows the capability of our forces, and he knows the decency of the American people, and he knows that people do not want us to walk away from something this important. As far as public opinion polls, I've addressed it many times. He's aware of polls, but he's also more keenly aware of his constitutional obligations, and he takes that first, and if it means taking a PR hit --

Okay, sectarian violence between two waring factions is about as close a definition of civil war as I can gather, no? And simply becuase some politician speechifies outside of the green zone doesn't make it less a civil war, now does it?

Q He doesn't think he needs the support of the American people on the Iraqi endeavor?

MR. SNOW: I think what's going to happen, as people learn more and more -- as you saw just last week, there was an 11-point pivot just on the basis of the fact that things that people had not seen in terms of behind-the-scenes operations to thwart terror, suddenly said, oh, boy, we do have something -- boom, 11-point jump. I think as people begin to see more --

Q I'm talking about Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, as people begin to see more of what's going on -- and Major General Caldwell is doing detailed briefings -- and one of these days maybe will bring some of the slides and things that he has -- giving you a better sense from ground level what's going on. I don't think -- I think the American people see headlines, they hear about these appalling acts of violence, and they are rightly concerned. What they don't see are the operations ongoing, the apprehensions of terrorists, the seizure of weapons caches, all of which are going on on a daily basis.

Now Tony is falling into the trap that Scotty McClellan did - trying to speak for the American people. And frankly, he doesn't speak for me - nor for many. And honestly, he doesn't get paid to predict what the American people will think about his boss's illegitimate war in Iraq.

Then Helen follows up with a really great question:

Q Is everybody a terrorist who opposes our presence in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, but somebody is a terrorist who kills innocent civilians to try to make a political point.

Well, just to turn the mirror in the correct direction. Might that definition, if it suits the W, Rove and Co in one direction, also apply to the W, Rove and Co itself? Certainly, how many civilians have died by the hands of the USA to make George Bush's "noble" political point in Iraq?