The President is challenging everybody who doesn't agree with his "surge" idea for Iraq to come up with something better.  That's like the fellow who sets his neighbors house on fire and then criticizes the fire department because they don't have a plan bring it under control.

His policy is correct in the sense that more troops  would be needed to  get things back to normal, if we knew what that was .  About ten times more than he wants to send or has available for that matter.  And then it's a matter of how much time can you commit to the game.  The "game" between the Sunni's and Shiites has been going on since sometime in the 7th century or so, give or take a couple hundred years.  That's a lot of military rotations if you figure it takes as long to solve a problem as it took to create it.  We should be able to declare "Mission Accomplished" somewhere around the year 3350 A.D.  Hopefully we can finish up Afghanistan at the same time.

The other alternatives are "cut and run".  That worked for the President and Vice President when their generation's war  in Vietnam was available for them and I'm surprised they haven't opted for it again.  Probably because somebody's watching this time.  The President is right though.  When we leave Iraq it will likely be a bloodbath as contrasted with the present bloodbath that we have already been powerless to stop.  The difference is we won't be there and consequently can ignore it.  We've shown we can successfully do that in Darfur.

Then there is "Plan B", which no one is talking about because no one has one. 

Took a couple months off and figured the Democrats would sweep Congress and the President would get smarter.  I was half right.

 Our leader spoke to us last night and said we should start a dialogue about what we should do in Iraq.  While he was talking the troops we were going to dialogue about were already enroute.  So much for dialogues.

Mr. Bush informed us he is sending another 20,000 troops to Iraq (+ another 1,500 he forgot to mention).  The purpose of this "surge" force is to shore up the  independent, democratically elected Iraqi government that has not been taking our orders quite the way we want them to.   The President assured us that the Iraqi government is going to get with the program or there will be "dire consequences". 

 Presumeably "dire consequences" means we will leave.  It can't mean we will send more troops or money if they don't do things our way, can it?

But then the President says we can't leave because the world's gas station will then descend into chaos and a hotbed of terrorists.  He didn't explain how we will recognize the difference.  A good comparison would be to go back and see what Iraq was like before we arrived.  No chaos and no terrorists.

He also said he had saved us from eventually facing an Iraq with a nuclear bomb and should probably use the same argument to strike other countries that might develop the same capability.  Perhaps he was thinking of France?

In any event we are now sending more troops and money to a country we can't afford to leave if things get worse and threatening to take our ball and go home if they do.  

Mr. Bush also said he had made some mistakes.  He did not itemize them or go into detail presumeably to keep the speech short. 

 

 

 

 

 

 The White House has decided that "stay the course" is sending the wrong message in trying to describe the the President's policy on Iraq and so we are not going to say it anymore.  Whether that is because no one knew what the course was or if they did it was the wrong course no one is saying.  So now we don't know if there even is a course.  

Obviously we need a new slogan.  How about "Unstay the Course", or maybe "Stay the Uncourse". 

Perhaps the best one would be "Unstay the Uncourse".  It best describes the undescribable and you can make it into whatever you need it to be on a day to day basis.

And if all else fails we can always fall back on the old standby "Mission Accomplished" and go home. 

President went to New Orleans on the first anniversay of Katrina this past week to tell the 50% of the population who are left in the city that now has 25% of it's electrical power restored and 60% of it's businesses still closed,....... that relief is on the way. The people seemed grateful and polite......or just shell shocked and amazed.  It was sort of hard to tell.  Appears to be part of the President's new political strategy called "Shock and Awe II".  The strategy is to show up in places where no one expects to see you and make absurd observations and statements and then escape before the "shock and awe" wear off.  He seems to have the methodology down cold.

President's defending his foriegn policy again.  He says we are in deep trouble.  The new political strategy seems to be to go after the small group (60% of the American people) who aren't supporting his policy in Iraq.  This new strategy also seems to be trying to equate the present conflict in Iraq with World War II.  According to the President, it doesn't mean these misguided unbelievers aren't patriotic, it means they are just uniformed or stupid and don't realize that they are the equivalent of a modern day Nazi sympathizer (which does sort of make them unpatriotic).  As soon as they realize that they will rally to his cause (because no one wants to be unpatriotic).He goes on to predict or prophesy (depending on your viewpoint) that the future of western civilization is at stake (apparently he believes that if Bagdad falls, Peoria is next), that this is the pivotal conflict of the 21st century (presumeably the remaining 94 years after he wins the great conflict will be peaceful) and he (as the moral equivalent of Roosevelt and/or Churchill depending on which speech you hear) is right and the rest of us are unfortunately WRONG.  Considering his track record on being right on anything it is surprising that he does have it right this time..........we are in deep trouble.

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfield is giving history lessons again.  This time he's comparing the people who oppose the war in Iraq to British Prime Minister Neville Chaimberlain and the pacifist who gave away Checkoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 to try to avoid World War II.  

The various cable networks "policy wonks" are starting to proclaim the Israeli/Hezbollah/Lebanese/Iraq/Afghanistan War as the opening stages of World War Three and the recent incursion into Lebanon by Israel as the "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Moment", referring to the assasination incident that started World War I.

The "new" agressive Bush policy of negotiation which replaces the "old" Bush agressive policy of "no negotiation" is supposed to make the President look like a statesman.  That's because his predecessor, the old George W. Bush screwed things up so bad that a replacement was needed.  The presumption is that the public won't notice that they happen to be one and the same person.  

The latest in the parade of CIA Directors and agency fixers "to be" is busy explaining to the media, Congress and the American people why they should remain ignorant and keep their nose out of what the government does on their behalf. He will determine what is best for us.

According to Air Force General Michael Hayden, "True accountability is not served by inaccurate, harmful and illegal public disclosures," the 61-year-old Air Force general said. "I will draw a clear line between what we owe the American public by way of openness and what must remain secret in order for us to continue to do our jobs."

Presumeably he will also determine what is "harmful, illegal and inaccurate" for us too.

Seemed to me like that was the attitude that got us into this mess. I always thought that if your goal was to get out of a hole one of the first things you need to do was stop digging.