Who's War Are We Fighting?

Civil War Fun With the W, Rove and Co:

“I have come to the conclusion that this is no longer America’s war in Iraq, but the Iraqi civil war where America is fighting,” Major Voorhies said.

How nice.

The second instalment of the "Twelve Days of Whoopsmas"

Here's the second part of the Mark Fiore video: enjoy.

Just One Question

Is killing Saddam going to be good for America? Explain:

Q And there are some threats from Saddam's Baath party over in Iraq, related to Saddam's execution. Would Saddam's execution in any way complicate President Bush's formulation of the new Iraq policy, because if it leads to more violence or anything along those lines --

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think, Toby, the enemy has always used just about any excuse they could find to foment violence, and that is not new. As we said yesterday, the Iraqis deserve praise for continuing to utilize the institutions of democracy to administer and pursue justice.

But in terms of potential violence resulting from the carrying out of that justice, certainly that's something that the multinational forces are aware of and Iraqi forces are certainly aware of. So we've seen in the past that the enemies have worked to use any excuse to foment violence and that's something that we're monitoring, for sure.

Q So does that mean that you're expecting some -- you're anticipating, or the administration is anticipating some sort of breakout of violence as a result of the execution?

MR. STANZEL: I think we're always aware of the situation and we're always knowledgeable that terrorists and former Saddamists have used various excuses to foment violence, and certainly the goal of the multinational forces, the goal of the Iraqi security forces is to provide security for the Iraqi people, and they will do that going forward.

Q Let me follow up, then. Has the military made any preparations for anticipated violence --

MR. STANZEL: I'd refer you to the multinational forces in Iraq, in terms of any preparations that they may be making. But like I said, the enemies of freedom and the enemies of the institutions of democracy have used excuses before, and conversely, have not needed excuses to attack. So the security situation is something that is an ongoing concern in Iraq.

Just The Kind Of "Surge" The W, Rove And Co Needs

...To boost support for their "war" on drugs...

The amount of high-quality heroin available throughout the United States is surging because of an increasing supply from Afghanistan, and with it comes the fear that record-breaking poppy harvests after the U.S. invasion are fueling more addictions and overdose deaths back home.

Make that two wars we "not winning, but not losing," eh?

Meanwhile, It Sucks For The Families Of These GIs KIA On Christmas Eve

Happy Christmas to the Grinch in the Whitehouse. Can you hear his heart breaking?

Some 12,000 Iraqi policemen have been killed since the ouster of
Saddam Hussein, the country's interior minister said Sunday, as clashes, a suicide bomber and weekend explosions killed more than a dozen Iraqi officers and four American soldiers.

Fun Snaps From Yesterday: Enjoy

Use Your



Dust in the wind



Starburst



Pan



Dr. Suess Gone Awry


All Images Copyright Windspike (2006)

Christmas Wishes

Any good ones? Post away.

Have We Got The Terrorist Bull By The Horns, Or Is The Bedouin Camel Eating Us Alive?

It appears to me that the time is right to do a comparative analysis to settle a burning question that has been blogged about repeatedly on many an established or not-so established web location. Specifically, is the world a better place now that Saddam is set to be swing some time soon?

In scientific experiments, design dictates that there be a set of givens and hypothesis about a particular treatment. Then you set up a control group (one that gets no treatment or a placebo) and the experimental group (the one that gets the full treatment that you believe will cure the ill). Then you execute your experiment with the main purpose to prove that your hypothesis is either correct or incorrect.

In the case of Iraq, we know what the givens were and what the hypothesis was. Problematically, there is no control group because the experimental dose was applied wholesale. Even so, because we can look back in history, we can use Iraq before the invasion as the control and post invasion as the experimental group. So, let's set up the equation for analysis and have at it.

Oh, by the way, incase you are already thinking this, lets forget the facts that the givens at the time have now proven false. That's a subject for another post. What we want to do is set up the experiment so that we can conduct a fair analysis with the articulated givens of the day, before the experimental does was applied.

Pre-Invasion Givens:

• Given 1 - We were in eminent threat of danger of terrorist attack because Saddam was in power in Iraq.


• Given 2 - Saddam was accruing weapons of mass destruction.


• Given 3 - Stopping terrorism as a primary goal necessitated the war be broached on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq.

W, Rove and Co Hypothesis - Invading Iraq would remedy the Iraqi threat and nullify terrorism on a global basis.

Post-Invasion Givens:

• Given - A - We have been at war in Iraq for nearly 4 years.


• Given - B - Saddam is set to be executed and is in captivity.


• Given - C - The end to this engagement is no where in sight.

Questions:

• Question 1 - Has the hypothesis been proven false?


• Question 2 - Given what you know about pre- and post-invasion Iraq, is America better off?

Nearing 3K KIA in Iraq, Almost The Same Number Killed In the WTC: What's Wrong With The President?

Today, the President and his wife were busy trying to prove they care about the misery the W, Rove and Co has caused with their illegitimate war in Iraq.

We've also just come from Walter Reed. I got to tell you, it's a remarkable experience to go through the hospital. It's remarkable because of the unbelievable compassion and care of the people who work at Walter Reed. And it's also remarkable to me, these men and women who have volunteered to serve our country, who've received terrible wounds, but whose spirits are strong, their resolve is strong, and their dedication to our country remains strong.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, we are nearing the 3000 KIA mark, at which point the we will have hit the 1/1 ratio of number of those killed in the Trade Centers versus those killed in Iraq.

The deaths brought the U.S. toll in Iraq to 2,960, creeping closer to the 3,000 mark and adding more pressure on President Bush to find a strategy that will allow the eventual withdrawal of 135,000 U.S. troops.

Bear in mind that not everyone in the WTC were of US origin. Thus, this number is a bit spurious. You see, if we only count American GIs KIA versus American's killed in the WTC, we probably surpassed the 1/1 ratio and are now heavy in the numerator. Trouble with this equation is that there seems to be no end in sight, for very little return.

What's wrong with our President?

The First Half Dozen Days Of "Whoopsmas"

Here's another fun Mark Fiore vid: Enjoy.

President Caught In His New Clothes Again: Just Because You Say Your Heart Breaks Doesn't Make It So

I love it when the President decides to go in front of the press. Unscripted, he exposes himself for who he really is.

Let's have a serious look at some of the more troubling comments he raised today.

We will start with the scripted segment first:

This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation.

Excuse me, but it's not my calling. If it really were a calling, might we not see volunteers running to recruiting stations like they did in WW II to stop Hitler? If it were a calling, might not his daughters head this call?

We have an obligation to ensure our military is capable of sustaining this war over the long haul, and in performing the many tasks that we ask of them.

Really? Then why didn't you do that from the outset? I believe that there are still some troops who need their Humvees plated and are absent appropriate body armor.

I've asked Secretary Gates to determine how such an increase could take place and report back to me as quickly as possible.

So, there's to be a "surge." How do they expect to come up with new troops when they can't outfit the existing troops?

And what of the troops?

We'll never lose sight that on the receiving end of the decisions I make is a private, a sergeant, a young lieutenant or a diplomat who risks his or her life to help the Iraqis realize a dream of a stable country that can defend, govern and sustain itself.

Do you believe him?

Let's see what the press gets out of him. First up, are we winning the war?

Q Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, "Absolutely we're winning." Yesterday you said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

THE PRESIDENT: My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win; I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you got to know. We're going to succeed.

My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. And so we're conducting a review to make sure that our strategy helps us achieve that which I'm pretty confident we can do, and that is have a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

You know, I -- when I speak, like right now, for example -- I'm speaking to the American people, of course, and I want them to know that I know how tough it is, but I also want them to know that I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that will help us achieve the objective. I also want our troops to understand that -- that we support them; that I believe that tough mission I've asked them to do is going to be accomplished, and that they're doing good work and necessary work.

I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective. And I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate America. They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is we're going to develop a strategy that helps the Iraqis achieve the objective that the 12 million people want them to achieve, which is a government that can -- a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself, a free country that will serve as an ally in this war against extremists and radicals.

If W, is not willing to predict what is going to happen in 2007, why is he so confident that we will win this thing? Because he has no other choice. It's such a gigantic sunk cost, he has to believe this. What's the alternative?

But for a man who suggests he doesn't speak in hypotheticals, we have to call him on this bluff, because it's simply not true. He speaks in hypotheticals when it's politically advantageous to do so. Have look:

...we're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies -- a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.

How can he be so certain about what might happen? What happened when Brittan pulled out of India? What happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? There are cases where people have pulled their troops out of loosing situations and the countries have flourished. Why wouldn't this happen in the Iraq case?

This is the trouble with ideological struggles: You can't win them in the hypothetical. But W insists on trying:

But I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks.

Prove that this would be the case, Mr. Bush. Simply because you say something doesn't make it so. Are you not talking about hypotheticals, for which you purposefully suggest is wrong to do?

And here's the kicker for me, of today's speechifying. I heard it on NPR this AM and these words have been haunting me all day:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War, questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you as you, yourself, have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. The most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. My heart breaks for a mother or father, or husband or wife, or son and daughter; it just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain.

I simply don't fucking believe him. If this man had a heart, he would have died of a broken heart about two years ago. Certainly, you cannot convince me that this man grieves for the losses he has created, not to mention the multitude of wounded walking about today.

And here is the bigger kicker - where he uses the families of those who have died in his war to amplify political support for the war that got their loved ones killed:

I reach out to a lot of the families, I spend time with them. I am always inspired by their spirit. Most people have asked me to do one thing, and that is to make sure that their child didn't die in vain -- and I agree with that -- that the sacrifice has been worth it.

We'll accomplish our objective; we've got to constantly adjust our tactics to do so. We've got to insist that the Iraqis take more responsibility more quickly in order to do so.

No remorse there - just leveraging the opportunity to make a political point. That's a fine how-do-you-do. But he adds emphasis to the lie:

But I -- look, my heart breaks for them, it just does, on a regular basis.

Bullshit or prove it! If you ask me if the man's heart aches or breaks, I would say he's got the heart of a Grinch, but two sizes smaller.

And here's how we know there is no remorse:

Q But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision. But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary.

And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism. It's in our nation's interest to do so. But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.

There is an underlying assumption laced in these paragraphs - that we are better off without Saddam in charge, but we now have a before and after comparison, and I think it looking more and more like I was better off with Saddam in charge, but this question is for another post.

In the end, why should we follow a man to the ends of the Earth when he gives up on his own administration? Remember, he pledged a long while back to find out who was causing leaks in his administration and punish them? Well, it looks like he's given up tying to find out:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, did you or your Chief of Staff order an investigation of the leak of the Hadley memo before your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki? And if the leak wasn't authorized, do you suspect someone in your administration is trying to undermine your Iraq policy or sabotage your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki a few weeks back?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm trying to think back if I ordered an investigation. I don't recall ordering an investigation. I do recall expressing some angst about -- about ongoing leaks. You all work hard to find information and, of course, put it out for public consumption, and I understand that. But I don't appreciate those who leak classified documents. And it's an ongoing problem here, it really is -- not just for this administration, but it will be for any administration that is trying to put policy in place that affects the future of the country.

And we've had a lot of leaks, Mark, as you know, some of them out of the -- I don't know where they're from, and therefore I'm not going to speculate. It turns out you never can find the leaker. It's an advantage you have in doing your job. We can moan about it, but it's hard to find those inside the government that are willing to give, in this case, Hadley's document to newspapers.

You know, there may be an ongoing investigation of this, I just don't know. If there is -- if I knew about it, it's not fresh in my mind. But I do think that at some point in time it would be helpful if we can find somebody inside our government who is leaking materials, clearly against the law, that they be held to account. Perhaps the best way to make sure people don't leak classified documents is that there be a consequence for doing so.

Yes, and why have you not done so, when promised, is a good question?

While It Gets More Bloody In Iraq, The Whitehouse Has A Different Brand of Shenanigans

A friend sent me to the Wonkette for a preview, and I found this gem on youtube. Enjoy:

Will A "Surge" Do It For Iraq?

Those of you who pay attention and track former W, Rove and Co officials who now disagree with his/her former employers know that Colin Powell doesn't think it's going well in Iraq.

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.

But the Whitehouse is talking about some kind of "surge" that will be necessary to restore order that really never was attained:

Q You said today that a troop surge in Iraq was something that's being explored. Is the idea of a troop cutback something that's also being explored?

MR. SNOW: What the President is asking people to explore are ways to victory in Iraq, which would mean an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, where the Iraqis, themselves eventually assume full control for the responsibilities of government: security, political, economic, diplomatic and so on. Anything that fits into that description the President will consider. And, therefore, there are a number of ideas that are being discussed and the President is leaving all options open.

Q Well, you confirmed the surge -- how about the cutback?

MR. SNOW: No, I confirmed that there are ideas and I have given you the proper metric. So if people think that that will contribute to the long term goal of victory, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be something under consideration.

But if you ask Colin Powel what he thinks, he would suggest the following:

Before any decision to increase troops, he said, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."

He added: "That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained."

The "active Army is about broken," Powell said. Even beyond Iraq, the Army and Marines have to "grow in size, in my military judgment," he said, adding that Congress must provide significant additional funding to sustain them.

I see. Whom shall we believe is right when it comes time to decide if we indeed are going to surge?

Let's see if Helen Thomas can get a bit more clarification out of Tony the Snow job. fans of Helen will love this cast iron frying pan slap around that she gives him:

Q Can I follow on that? The President had said in the past that he doesn't set the troop levels, that the commanders in the field -- has that changed?

MR. SNOW: What the President does -- let me put it this way: What the President does is he sets the mission. And then combatant commanders figure out how to conduct the mission. And when they ask for resources, he provides them. And that's how it works.

Q And so the President would go with their -- would still go with their advice on troop levels?

MR. SNOW: Yes. But, again, keep in mind the President sets the mission. So you define the mission, then you figure out what resources are adequate. This, I think, again, mirrors comments that General Conway has made and also Colin Powell has made, which is you -- when people were talking about surges, the answer is, if it fits into a military plan and you have a good plan for it, then maybe it would be appropriate. I am not commenting on surge; I'm just telling you that regardless of what happens in terms of troop posture or equipping forces or deploying forces or moving or redeploying -- any military decision obviously is going to have to be made in concert with the goal, which is to win in Iraq.

Q Does public opinion enter into his review at all, in terms of the election and --

MR. SNOW: The President -- in this sense, Helen, the President understands that you cannot win the war without public support. And it is important to continue -- because it's going to be a long war and it is going to need the determination of the American people --

Q Why is it going to be a long war?

MR. SNOW: Because as far as we can tell, terrorists don't have any desire to stop entertaining thoughts of terror any time soon. And that the global war on terror, which is not confined to Iraq or Afghanistan, but instead has people who are still committed to committing acts of violence on our shores. The President outlined some of those this fall when he was talking about particular operations that had been intercepted as a result of intelligence that we had gleaned from planners of attacks, that they have no desire to back away, that there's an ideology of hatred that involves not only destroying the United States of America, but also the notion of personal freedom.

So that being the case, it is going to require a commitment over a long period of time to make sure that we deal with the problem effectively. And that's not just militarily -- it means diplomatically, it means economically, it means by example, so that if you have a democracy that demonstrates to people in the Middle East you can practice your faith, you can pursue your future, you can vote for the people who are going to govern you, you can have control over your destiny -- these are things that have not been -- that people in the Middle East have not been able to take for granted. And when they see that they have those options, that in and of itself will probably be the most powerful discouragement to terror imaginable.

Q Why can you identify all the Iraqi resistance as terror?

MR. SNOW: I didn't.

Q We are the occupiers, do you realize that? And do you realize what an occupation is?

MR. SNOW: Do you also realize -- I do -- I think people not only understand occupation, people in Iraq also understand --

Q Your broad brush everything.

MR. SNOW: And that was a precise characterization you just gave me?

Q I am saying that you --

MR. SNOW: No, you just used a broad brush on responding. If you wish to get into colloquialism, I'll be happy to go along.

Q Do you think that people are resisting our occupation?

MR. SNOW: I think that there are some people -- as a matter of fact, if you take a look at Saddam rejectionists, they're absolutely resisting the occupation. As a matter of fact, their avowed goal -- it's right here in the 90/10 report -- that says that their avowed goal is to push Americans out. Why? Because they want to reestablish the kind of supremacy they enjoyed during the days of Saddam.

There are many people who want to end the occupation and, in many cases, they want to end the occupation because they, themselves, want to restore or to create their own tyranny over the Iraqi people. They do not want to support the goal of a democracy in which the human rights of all are protected and --

Q What gives you the right to impose anything on them?

MR. SNOW: I think what we're -- you know, what's interesting is the government of Iraq and people of Iraq look upon us not as imposing. I don't know how you impose liberty. I think what you do is you -- you impose tyranny and you relieve tyranny by creating the possibility for freedom.

Well, perhaps the most important line in this exchange is the following: "you cannot win the war without public support." If what we are experiencing today constitutes support, I would hate to see what lack of support looks like. Is it me, or do the folks of the W, Rove and Co have their heads some place where reality is absent?

CLANG! The Sound of Helen's Cast Iron Fry Pan Hitting Tony's Head One More Time

You know I love Helen Thomas. She's one tough cookie.

Periodically, she wips out her cast iron fry pan and smacks the presdential spokesmodel over the head with interesting questions. Today was no different.

Helen's good at not letting Tony the Snow job off the hook. Have a look at this wonderful exchange where she holds Tony's feet to the fire and you see him piss all over his shoes:

Q Has the President factored in any of how many people will die?

MR. SNOW: Helen, you ask that question every day, and I don't know how I can --

Q It's a very valid question.

MR. SNOW: And it's a question he thinks about every day.

Q And does he care about it? Does it matter how many die?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it does. Absolutely.

Q Well, you have a benchmark now -- this fall has been so lethal.

MR. SNOW: And the people who have been killing will kill even more if we walk away. I would turn you to The New York Times op-ed page today, where a Marine Major talks about --

Q Written by a Marine.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, does that make it suspect that he's on the ground trying to save lives?

Q No, that doesn't. But, I mean, he has to take the military attitude.

MR. SNOW: Well, you might want to read it, because the military -- the military attitude is, warriors don't like to be engaged in war if you can have peace, and generals don't like to send people into battle unless they have to. The people who are instigating the violence in Iraq are ones who are determined to kill.

Q You don't think our occupation is a factor?

MR. SNOW: I think the biggest factor right now -- if you take a look at what's going on, who are they killing? They're killing Iraqis, aren't they? They are primarily killing Iraqis. And what they're trying to do is to destroy hope and peace and democracy.

Q How do you know all that? I mean, why do you think people would want to do that? In the first place, they don't like an occupation.

MR. SNOW: Could it be they're suffused with hatred? Could it be that people, in fact, who are in unoccupied lands, who have been slaughtering, also do so because they hate people? The question is --

Q Do we hate them? Are we killing any of them?

MR. SNOW: Yes, we are.

Just wondering: Is Tony lying again about whether or not the President thinks about people getting killed in his wonderful freedom spreading Petry dish he calls Iraq?

A War Nobody Wants To Pay For

I thought the following was an interesting read, grabbed from a link posted by an anon contributor to the comments of another post:

Now we know that the decision to put the war on a credit card is not simply a moral question. The administration's failure to acknowledge the real costs of the war -- and to pay them -- has put it in a corner.

The president's options in Iraq are severely constrained because our military is too small for the foreign policy he is pursuing. Sending more troops would place even more excruciating burdens on members of our armed forces and their families. And the brass fears that an extended new commitment could, quite simply, break the Army.

Yet, instead of building up our military for a long engagement and levying the taxes to pay for such an enterprise, the administration kept issuing merry reports of progress in Iraq. Right through Election Day this year, the president continued to condemn anyone who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should raise taxes to pay for this war.

If you want to really know why the war on Iraq was started, you just have to "follow the money." Who is profiting from this situation?

Really, the war was not for freedom, democracy, liberty, and justice for all, now was it? It was mainly about making gigantic sums of cash for the warmongering profiteer pals of those in the W, Rove and Co. And that's a gift that will keep on giving to those people for generations to come, while they suck the cash right out of your unborn great-grandchild's wallets even before they are born.

Will Mary Cheney And Her Partner Make Great Parents?

Well, Mary Cheney must have the republicans' underwear in a twist over her recent announcment. We know what the president thinks:

Q Tony, in an interview with People Magazine, the President was asked about Mary Cheney's pregnancy, and said he's confident -- he believes she'll be a loving soul to her child. In the past, he said that he believes the ideal is that a child be raised in a married family with a man and a woman. Does he still believe that's the ideal?

MR. SNOW: Yes, he does, but he also believes that every human life is sacred and that every child that comes into the world deserves love. And he believes that Mary Cheney's child will, in fact, have loving parents.

Q Does he believe that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are at a disadvantage?

MR. SNOW: He does not make comments on that, and nor will I.

It is what W says in private and how he acts that already lead us to know what he thinks in that last bit, no?

What do you think, will Mary Cheney and her partner make good parents?

5,900

Helen Thomas is always good for some interesting questions.

Every so often she wips out her cast iron fry pan and smacks Tony the Snow job over the head.

What do you make of these?

Helen.
Q I have two questions. Since the President knows how many Iraqis were killed in the two months period, how many were killed in the four years of war?

MR. SNOW: Two things; I know you asked the question in the gaggle. What you had was the President had a briefing on how many people were killed in combat activities. The Iraqi government, itself, compiles its own statistics on those who have died in the violence. I am sure that there is a briefing paper that has that exact number on it, or at least their best guesses on it.

Maybe the one important number is the nearly 27 million Iraqis no longer have to live under the terror and despotism of Saddam Hussein. They have an elected government, which many of them risked their lives to vote for. It's a unity government. And one of the chief aims, as we've just pointed out, is to get rid of the violence that is claiming lives unnecessarily and to allow that democracy to move forward peacefully.

Q That isn't an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q Why? Why can't you count the number who were killed in four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently it's a difficult task, and I would refer you to the government of Iraq.

Q How do you know 5,900 were killed in two months?

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you, those are the confirmed kills on the battlefield as passed on by commanders.

Q And what about going after ACLU, when you didn't go after the Hadley memo --

MR. SNOW: We do not talk about any ongoing court activities. You know that, Helen.

Q But you are going after the ACLU, aren't you?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we don't -- you could chase me around the table as many times as you want on it, but we do not comment on ongoing court activities.

Q That's not fair.

MR. SNOW: It may not be fair, but it's the policy of any administration not to talk about ongoing court activities.

Q As a former newsman --

MR. SNOW: As a former newsman, I know when to stop chasing somebody around the podium. This is a case where it has always been the standard of administrations, Democratic and Republican, that you do not talk about ongoing court issues.

...well, we only talk about on giong court issues when it's to our political advantage, right Tony?

Still Awaiting The Bright Shinny Day When The President Follows His Own Advice

Okay, admit it: You wouldn't even know the President has a weekly radio address if you didn't click on this blog entry.

Does anyone actually listen to the President of is it a waste of taxpayer dollars for him to do this?

This week, we see the President preaching about being fiscally responsible as you finish up your holiday shopping. How many people out there would wish that the W, Rove and Co would follow their own advice?

When you decide how to spend your paycheck, you have to set priorities and live within your means. Congress needs to do the same thing with the money you send to Washington. That was one of the clear messages American voters sent in the mid-term elections. And one of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks.

If you ask me, the cost of one Iraq war is really fiscally irresposnsible. Might that cash has been better spent elsewhere? Oop, I forgot, W has put our stars and stripes in hock to pay for his illegitimate war on Iraq. He's not even paying for it up front, now is he? This means more taxes will have to be imposed some time in the future.

When Is It Appropriate To Announce The Truth?

On Tuesday, I identified another of what looked to be another in the long line of lies told by the W, Rove and Co for political gain. When Tony was asked directly about the possibility of troop level boosting in Iraq, he dutifully said:

Q Is it possible that the President does not want to announce the deployment of thousands of more U.S. troops to Iraq before the holidays?

MR. SNOW: No, it has nothing to do with that. Cynical, but false.

Of course, it's not a boldfaced lie. It's one of those morally and ethically slippery slope kinds of positions. Tony doesn't really say much about troop levels, but comments specifically on the idea that the W thinks the American people don't want the truth. The subliminal message is that we can't handle the truth.

But as the news evolves, it looks more and more likely that we are going to be sending more troops into harms way.

Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major “surge” in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

I don't know why they play these moves so close to the vest and then more and more information gets leaked or discovered. If the press can find out this kind of information, so too can the terrorists. The only ones that suffer are the American people - as they are the last one's to the game, and it certainly looks like the President and his staff are purposefully misleading the public for political rather than logical reasons.

I'd rather know what kind of trouble the W, Rove and Co has gotten or will get us into sooner than the terrorists, and in clearer detail. There's nothing transparent about the W, Rove and Co, now is there? Sure the truth can hurt, but it's the only way to a common solution. It leads to another frustration of mine, those who ask for solutions to complex problems, but don't give all the information so that we can make an informed suggestion.

But I digress - If the truth shall set us free, no wonder the W, Rove and Co are so reluctant to share it with us.

Oh, and in the odd chance you are wondering where the hell the Pentagon is going to come up with said troops, you wouldn't be the only one:

Warning that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations, the nation's top Army general yesterday called for expanding the force by 7,000 or more soldiers a year and lifting Pentagon restrictions on involuntary call-ups of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops.

I forget, didn't the W, Rove and Co promise not to draft anyone? What, then, is an "involuntary call-up?"

Divertmento

FYI, Mozart's 250th is coming up and you can view his scores on line. I found my favorite piece - the Requiem - as it is fun to cue up the music and listen as you read the score. I think they have all the work Mozart did located there, as long as you don't profit off the material it's free to everyone.

Enjoy.