Contrary to the right-wing talking point of the “surge” is turning out to be nothing more than a disaster. Today marked one of the deadliest single days for Iraq for civilians since we invaded the damn country. Today in Baghdad for car bombs exploded, just one of them killed 127 people,With another 148 wounded. Totally a bloodbath from the four car bombings as well as the various bodies scattered throughout the city death toll today alone in Baghdad was 208.

President Bush is doing his best to beg the Democrats not to cut funding for his failure in Iraq. He cites three reasons why the will of the American people should not be listened to, all three of them are total bullshit.

• His first reason is that Indian war in Iraq will somehow hurt the troops, I'm not sure how one can justify the troops are safer in a war zone then they would be stateside, but then again this is Bush's America.

• His second justification for the continued war in Iraq is September 11, that Iraq is somehow got something to do with September 11 regardless of the vast piles of paper that say otherwise, I can only guess that since our President does not read newspapers and his only source of news is those around him, he must be listening to Dick Cheney, Not the Department of Defense, United Nations, FBI, CIA, and several foreign intelligence services who have released reports that show no connection between Iraq and the attackers on September 11.
• His final reason for not ending the war in Iraq is that his “surge” plan is going swimmingly, just ignore the 200 and eight dead people today alone.

It's time for the Democrats to give Bush an ultimatum, sign the legislation were about to send your desk work is your war funding goodbye because a second bill will not come to the floor. If the Democrats played their cards right outcome would clearly show that the war funding was vetoed by Bush, That the Democrats gave him the exact amount he was looking for.

Democrats pass the bill. And within moment the White House said that Bush wants to talk to America. Hey Bush, America wants the war to end right now, and your little whine will not change that. I dare you to veto it, and watch your war funding dry up all together. If you veto it that is all you get.

Oh he is on, I wonder if he is sober this time…

The Republican motto for this war, “Thieves expoit chaos to steal” that is what this war is all about. Looks like the Republicans are going to end the war with Iraq sooner than the Democrats ever would if they are not careful.

Today the House plans on passing the next round of funding for the Republican Iraq War, attached to this bill is a very reasonable time table for ending the war. The Republicans are up in arms about this timetable, showing just how disconnected from the American people they are, they are using some great buzz words like “Micromanage” and “Tying the Hands of the President” and you know what, they are right. Simply put the war must be “Micromanaged” because the last 5 years under the Republicans, the war was not managed at all, so when something goes 5 years with no management, a little micro-management is in order. They are also right about “Tying the hands of the President” for almost the same reason, no one has done any oversight for the last 6 years, he need his hands tied.

So the demise of the War in Iraq may be a Republican event, in fact Bush himself may do it. Scenario one, the Republicans have said that if the bill moves to the floor of the Senate with the timetable intact, they will filibuster the bill, killing it, and by doing so, the Republicans will say to the world, “We will not fund the Troops, we will not fund the War”, and the war will be over. Scenario two is even more fun, the bill makes it thought the process and is sent to the White House, the “President” will have to make a choose, fund the war, or don’t. The Republicans can, and from what it sounds like, will defund the war, in short cutting of their own nose, to spite their own faces.

Now for this plan to work the Democrats need to stick to the mandate given to them by the people and fight to keep the timetables intact. They also need to pass the war funding and be done with it. Bush and the Republican have one chance to get it done, and if they filibuster it or veto it, the war is over because the bill will not return to the floor of either chamber. The bill dies, the money for Iraq dries up, the Democrats make it clear that they tried but the Republicans were the ones to kill this bill, to use one of there own dirty tricks, “They were for the funding before they were against it”

The Republicans are playing chicken with the Democrats, and if they stay strong, the RIGHT decision for Iraq will be made, the War will End, and the Republican will have no one but themselves to blame.

From the AP

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

Bush does not want to protect America, he said he will veto the 9-11 Report bill if it allows TSA workers to unionize. He hates Americans so much that he will willing to allow America to be unsafe because he hates Unions. He has only vetoed one bill in his whole “presidency” and that was the steam-cell bill. He hates American’s health, and he hates their rights…

From Reuters

The U.S. Senate began debating legislation to bolster America's security on Wednesday with the White House threatening a veto because one part would extend union protection to 45,000 airport workers.

President George W. Bush's administration charged that the Democratic-backed provision to provide workers limited collective bargaining rights would curb needed flexibility at the U.S. Transportation Security Administration and diminish traveler safety.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a Connecticut independent and a chief sponsor of the overall bill, disagreed. He said he would urge Bush to support the provision as a way to bolster spirits among a largely demoralized workforce.

Noting there has been a high rate of turnover and injuries among the U.S. agency's baggage screeners, Lieberman said: "When you give employees a right to join an employee organization you are likely to improve their morale."

Lieberman pointed out that most federal workers already have such rights. He also said the proposal would not allow screeners to strike and would still permit
TSA to assign them as needed in an emergency.

"We are going to make the case," Lieberman said.

The provision is an another effort by new Democratic-led Congress to advance a number of causes favored by the U.S. labor movement, such as raising the minimum wage and making it easier to unionize.

Britain and Denmark pulling out of Bush's Disastrous War

The “Collation of the Willing” is almost no more. Britain said it is pulling out of Iraq, Denmark as announced the same. This war is a disaster and no one wants to be a part of it.

Now this is pure speculation right now, but one has to ask, why is Tony Blair, who has stuck with Bush come hell or high water all of the sudden wanting to get out of Dodge? I, and a few others have a feeling that there is another Downing Street Memo, a letter showing that the Bush administration is tiring to “fix the facts” to go to war with Iran, and Britain will have NONE of that. Remember that the Brits are in the South of Iraq, it would be hard pressed not to get involved in a US / IRAN war if the launch pad is Iraq.

From AP

Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer if Iraqi forces can secure the country's south, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday.

The announcement, which came as Denmark said it would withdraw its 460 troops and Lithuania said it was considering pulling out its small contingent, comes as the U.S. is implementing an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq - putting Washington on an opposite track as its main coalition allies.

Analysts say there is little point in boosting forces in largely Shiite southern Iraq, where most non-U.S. coalition troops are concentrated. Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble.

Blair told the House of Commons that British troops will stay in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and maintain supply routes to U.S. and coalition troops. He told lawmakers that "increasingly our role will be support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly."

In a stinging rebute of “President” Bush’s failed Iraq policies the House today voted 246 to 182 on a non-binding resolution to stop the escalation of the war. While the house is in strong Democratic hands a large handful of Republicans (17) joined them in sending a clear message to Bush, your plan for Iraq sucks, and has failed.

Now many of the right-wing will say that “Oh the Democrats don’t support the troops, blah blah…” this is total crap. The Republicans have taken every chance they get to dig the troops into whole after whole. From the total lack of armor and vehicles in Iraq, to taxing their combat pay, the Republicans have shown that NOTHING is to good for the troops, and NOTHING is what they are going to get.

For the record, Marshall, Jim; Georgia, 8th and Taylor, Gene; Mississippi, 4th, both Democrats voted with the lapdog Republicans.

Just like the rest of the this failure of an administration it is all about the message and not about the substance. The White House is going ape shit over the fact that the Senate is working on a NONBINDING resolution about the escalation of Bush�s war in Iraq. AmericaBlog points out, �Here's an idea for the White House: worry less about the battle over a resolution in the Senate, worry more about the actual war in Iraq.�

The New York Times

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, an outspoken Republican critic of the administration�s Iraq policy, will join two leading Democrats in introducing a resolution opposing President Bush�s buildup of troops in Iraq, putting a bipartisan stamp on the looming Congressional showdown over the war…

…

That official said that the message to Congressional Republicans was similar to the one the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, conveyed Tuesday at his press briefing: that approval of any resolution critical of Mr. Bush�s approach, even if nonbinding, would send a damaging message.

�In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq?� asked Mr. Snow. �And, also, what message does it send to the troops?�

Mr. Bush on Tuesday stepped up his challenge to Congress to provide an alternative plan if it is going to criticize his.

This is a Must Read, but PLEASE BE WARNED, the link is to Playboy.com (Yes ladies there is some great stories in Playboy, it's true)

If You Think The Iraq War Hasn't Worked Out Well For Anyone, Think Again…

…In November of 2002, Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security advisor, asked Bruce Jackson to meet with him in the White House. They met in Hadley's office on the ground floor of the West Wing, not far from the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Hadley had an exterior office with windows, an overt indicator of his importance within the West Wing hierarchy.

This was months before Secretary of State Colin Powell would go to the United Nations to make the administration's case for the invasion of Iraq, touting the subsequently discredited evidence of weapons of mass destruction. But according to Jackson, Hadley told him that "they were going to war and were struggling with a rationale" to justify it. Jackson, recalling the meeting, reports that Hadley said they were "still working out" a cause, too, but asked that he, Jackson, "set up something like the Committee on NATO" to come up with a rationale…

…What Bruce Jackson came up with for Hadley this time, in 2002, was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. The mission statement of the committee says it was "formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." The pressure group began pushing for regime change — that is, military action to remove Hussein — in the usual Washington ways, lobbying members of congress, working the media and throwing money around. The committee's pitch, or rationale as Hadley would call it, was that Saddam was a monster — routinely violating human rights — and a general menace in the Middle East…

…Bush couldn't go into Iraq without a major ally and Lockheed knew it. To sweeten the pot for Blair, Lockheed dragged BAE Systems (British Aerospace) into the F-35 deal. When BAE still struggled prior to the war (Goldman Sachs reported that BAE would have to cut its dividend), Lockheed began renegotiating the contract — with the new version unveiled in 2005, giving BAE billions more to be paid "as needed." This put BAE back on its feet, able to build the Typhoon jet fighter for sale to Saudi Arabia in a $70 billion deal, saving 10,000 BAE jobs and 4,000 Rolls-Royce jet engine building jobs…

This thing is 7 pages, and is a Must Read.

How dumb do I think they are? I think they would sell military parts to Iran at the same time we try to go to war with them. The government as a whole is such a mess under George W. Bush, and his Republican backers, that the Pentagon knowingly sold US Military surplus to Iran, the same nation that ol� George is beating the drum to go to war with.

Oh no, I am not making this up. The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service a site ran by I am guessing the US Government, given it .mil web address sold F-14 Tomcat spare parts to a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting US missile parts to Iran. Yes, he was just released from prison, what was the first thing he did, deal weapons to Iran after serving time for selling weapons to Iran! We sold them to him. Iran is so desprate for those parts because that is their Air Force, they have the F-14 Tom Cats from back in the 1970's when we were friends.

See I told you that Bush and the gang are nothing more than Wae Profiteers.

You are welcome to read the whole article, but this is the greatest paragraphs�

In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department�s surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again - customs evidence tags still attached - to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.

That incident appalled even an expert on weaknesses in Pentagon surplus security controls. �That would be evidence of a significant breakdown, in my view, in controls and processes,� said Greg Kutz, the Government Accountability Office�s head of special investigations. �It shouldn�t happen the first time, let alone the second time.�

Clearly the only think the Neo-cons know is more war. Both of these evil bastards gave almost the same reason for escalating the wars. I have selected a few paragraphs, but I welcome you to go and read them both. We know how one of the wars turned out, so why are repeating it again. Oh I remember because AIE told Bush to, American People 0 , Right-Wing think tank 2.

Richard Nixon's Address to the Nation April 30th 1970

�Despite that warning, North Vietnam has increased its military aggression in all these areas, and particularly in Cambodia….

�First, we can do nothing. Well, the ultimate result of that course of action is clear. Unless we indulge in wishful thinking, the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam after our next withdrawal of 150,000 would be gravely threatened. Let us go to the map again. Here is South Vietnam. Here is North Vietnam. North Vietnam already occupies this part of Laos. If North Vietnam also occupied this whole band in Cambodia, or the entire country, it would mean that South Vietnam was completely outflanked and the forces of Americans in this area, as well as the South Vietnamese, would be in an untenable military position. * Our second choice is to provide massive military assistance to Cambodia itself. Now unfortunately, while we deeply sympathize with the plight of 7 million Cambodians whose country is being invaded, massive amounts of military assistance could not be rapidly and effectively utilized by the small Cambodian Army against the immediate threat. With other nations, we shall do our best to provide the small arms and other equipment which the Cambodian Army of 40,000 needs and can use for its defense. But the aid we will provide will be limited to the purpose of enabling Cambodia to defend its neutrality and not for the purpose of making it an active belligerent on one side or the other. * Our third choice is to go to the heart of the trouble. That means cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong occupied territories � these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodia and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Some of these, incidentally, are as close to Saigon as Baltimore is to Washington. This one, for example, is called the Parrot's Beak. It is only 33 miles from Saigon�

�Now let me give you the reasons for my decision.

* A majority of the American people, a majority of you listening to me, are for the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. The action I have taken tonight is indispensable for the continuing success of that withdrawal program. * A majority of the American people want to end this war rather than to have it drag on interminably. The action I have taken tonight will serve that purpose. * A majority of the American people want to keep the casualties of our brave men in Vietnam at an absolute minimum. The action I take tonight is essential if we are to accomplish that goal.

We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into CambodiaVietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made - we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield� but for the purpose of ending the war in…

George Bush's Address to the Nation Jan 10th 2007

...But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis…

�The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq�

�This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs�

�Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home…

Where has all the money gone, well I have a few guesses, Halliburton, KBR, The Carlyle Group, and a few other choose, connected, corporations.

From the LA Times

By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America's longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today's dollars.

By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600-billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway, and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.

The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its price tag is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary "burn rate" for Iraq may be greater than in some periods in past wars.

If U.S. involvement continues on the current scale, the funding for the Iraq war � combined with the conflict in Afghanistan and other foreign fronts in the war on terrorism � is projected to surpass this country's Vietnam spending next year.

And the accumulating cost is adding to resistance to President Bush's war policy in Congress as well as in public opinion, even though concern about the cost in human lives, the war's impact on America's place in the world and other such factors loom larger.

Well it is official; George Bush gives the one finger salute to the troops, Iraqis, and the American People. It is being reported now that the escalation of the war in Iraq is on, and Bush does not care what the generals say, the troops say, or the American people say.

One still has to ask, what is the mission, not just for the extra troops, but all of the troops? What side of the civil war do we want to win, for the love of god George, tell us what side you want to win, we will go and slaughter the other side, and we can bring the troops home. Right now they are sitting ducks, and sending more ducks does not make it better.

George Bush is a coward, and he just wants to keep this war going so that he and his �Base� can keep raking in the cash. Oh, and so Joe Lieberman can do his best to remain important.

From the AP

A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday.

Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.

Moving first would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into Iraq.

Details of the plan were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country, and they came as members of Congress kept up vocal opposition to any major escalation in the nearly four-year-old war.

Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.

Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.

For some time you hear the last of the wingnuts tell you that this war in Iraq was about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. While many others have said this was a war for Oil. well guess what, the "War for Oil" croud was right. So now it begs to ask, so how many solders per gallon is "Worth it" to Bush and his supporters?

From the Independent News (UK) (Bolds are mine)

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?… The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Some documents are starting to show up, and I am sick to think that the once "Beacon on the hill" that was America, the once yard stick that all others tried to get to in human rights has now gone to this level.

From the AP (Bolds are Mine)

FBI agents documented more than two dozen incidents of possible mistreatment at the Guantanamo Bay military base, including one detainee whose head was wrapped in duct tape for chanting the Quran and another who pulled out his hair after hours in a sweltering room.

Documents released Tuesday by the FBI offered new details about the harsh interrogation practices used by military officials and contractors when questioning so-called enemy combatants.

The reports describe a female guard who detainees said handled their genitals and wiped menstrual blood on their face. Another interrogator reportedly bragged to an FBI agent about dressing as a Catholic priest and "baptizing" a prisoner.

Some military officials and contractors told FBI agents that the interrogation techniques had been approved by the Defense Department, including directly by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The documents were released in response to a public records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing Rumsfeld and others on behalf of former military detainees who say they were abused. Many of the incidents in the FBI documents have already been reported and are summarized in the ACLU's lawsuit.