PC commented on the last post that we should be very careful with our statements concerning our glorious Political Representatives. And that I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions with talk of Reyes being bought off...
Reviewing Rep. Reyes blog today, reveals - that apparently- he was just clueless. My bad. Visiting Reyes blog today, he says that after reading the ISG- he is completely changing his position:
This report confirms what most have known for the past several years - staying the course in Iraq is not a viable option. We need a new approach, and this report provides us some possible options that deserve serious consideration. Those options include: launching a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq, including engaging with Iran and Syria; transitioning U.S. combat forces out of from Iraq by 2008 while embedding remaining forces in Iraqi units as advisors
Oopsies, Silvestre. What a difference a day makes. Thank god the ISG cleared that up! No apologies or even a reference to his remarks the day prior, which leads me to believe that those of you who thought Reyes was being clever (ala Rangel and the draft) uh- were maybe looking too hard for some brainwave activity in his reasoning.
Forgive me for apparently being more informed on, uh - THE SITUATION in IRAQ - than a politician who has been "a senior member of both the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees. Congressman Reyes is a key member of Congress on Defense and military issues." Or so Wikipedia says.
How could he be so clueless and backtrack so quickly? He's not exactly one of our Democratic stand up guys- In 2005 he missed 94 votes in the House, the ninth most of any member. Wow even among a Do-Nothing Congress, he stands out.
He's currently in his 5th term and he pulled 68% of the vote in his last election. His voting record ain't bad- mainly straight Democratic party, although he did vote along with the GOP to give Oil companies incentives against the Democratic party line as well as for the Unborn Child Pain act that failed. And he was linked to a controversy concerning the failure of a $239 million Border patrol network and the contractor who employing his daughter. Other than that, he looks pretty good, except for his flip floppery on Iraq recently.
So, hey, it's a simple mistake. Two days ago he wanted to send 30,000 More troops. Today he doesn't. Just forget everything he was saying to NEWSWEEK. Or that's WHAT he's telling his Democratic constituency NOW. Too bad we probably won't see any MSNBC headlines about him changing his tune. The damage has been done. So rest easy - He wasn't paid off, or anything nefarious like that. He just needed Jim Baker to pop the bubble he was in.
This boils my damn blood! To hear this utter garbage from a neocon, WWIII-pining, Corporate Robber Baron Republican is one thing. But to hear it from the Democrat appointed by Pelosi who will soon head up the House Intelligence Committee is like taking a kick to the gut.
-
-
In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
-
What in the sixth layer of hell is going on? Who bought off Reyes? "Dismantle" the militias? What fucking planet is this moron on? 30,000 more troops? This is from a man whose has been opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning? He is from Texas, so I apologize, politicians are as crooked as they come around here.
-
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
-
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
-
What part of IMPOSSIBLE does this brainiac not understand? Someone slap this fool with a little bit of the FACT that: Most Iraqi citizens ARE standing members of one militia faction or another. Every family is allowed an AK-47 in Iraq. A civil war rages and if you AREN'T gathering your neighbors and families together in armed bands, you are just going to become a victim. What next? Will he outlaw firearms and disarm the whole damn country? How many troops will that take? Another 140,000? And how about this other possibly useful tidbit of info : Most of the Military and Police that we are training also holds allegiance with one faction or another. Has he considered that?
-
This is OUR Strong Democratic leadership? This is stupidity on the level of Friedman, Kristol, and Hume! Does Reyes really have no clue to what is going on in Iraq? This is pure idiocy. And either Reyes is an idiot - Or he has ALREADY sold out to the other side.
-
And for those who are normally sane and thoughtful who are claiming this is a ploy to one-up McCain- No, it's not. So stop whitewashing stupidity and "ploys" as some kind of great political tactics. The nation elected Democrats in record numbers for one reason and one reason ONLY- They are tired of the bullshit. We want straight talking and intelligent discussion. No more cut-and-stay dialogue. Get us the hell out of Iraq NOW.
There are two great articles on Alternet today that discuss both the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the greater Israeli/Every other Arab conflict.
Both offer a sense of hope for the future. If peace is ever to be achieved in the middle east, it will not be at the hands of a government. It will be when the people on all sides, who have endured and committed so much violence at the same time, can stop the cycle of revenge and retaliation.
The first article discusses how the direct victims of the conflict are striving to do just that= to bury their hate and love their enemies. Half the world away, an American like me can claim to understand, but I can't, truly. It is easy for us to cry out "Stop this useless murder!" with a modicum of emotion and empathy. For those who have lost their husbands, wives, and children, it seems almost an impossible notion.
For those victims- it is a tribute to their humanity that they can set aside vengeance and channel their emotions to serve the cause of peace in their countries. It is far easier to take up a weapon and join those who seek destruction as their only defense. But as these victims can tell you, it only means more martyrs, more victims, more destruction.
The only victory is when the violence stops. Peace is the only solution. Peace is the only victory. Hopefully these brave souls, both jewish and arab, can make more of their countrymen understand this lesson without becoming victims to fully comprehend it.
The Second Article is the story on a more personal level, from the perspective of a Jewish American journalist and his journeys into Lebanon.
EXCERPT:
In all my travels in the Middle East I have repeatedly received the same welcome response. It is one of two Koranic phrases I have memorized. Lakum dinakum wa ana diin. Roughly, they have their mitzvahs (commandments) , and I have mine. I don't pretend to understand the context or interpretations of this phrase, but my entire understanding of Islam -- of the Arab world -- starts here.For Peace- All Understanding on both sides must begin somewhere.
So far everything that has come out of Gates mouth has been to parrot the president. [Leaving will be disasterous, the troops need to stay indefinitely, there is no civil war, it's all Iran's fault, etc] I have not heard anything that makes me think that he will be any different than Rummy. I say NO to Gates. Any thoughts? This can be kind of an open forum on the Gates hearing. *Update* Gates was unanimously approved. Any thoughts?
Week two of the Pre-November the 7th Thinking series, "the Zombies are starting to awake and attack the agenda the American people voted for," edition:
Allahpundit [Hot Air] - "Bad things happen when you lose your majority."
NewsBusters - "The BBC reports that John Bolton had to leave the UN due to a weakened Bush and Republican set backs in the November election . . . Anything to keep the meme going, Democrats up, Republicans down."
John J. Miller [NRO] - "How about Rick Santorum for the UN job? Yeah, there'd probably be a confirmation fight. And he may want to take a breather after 16 years in elected office. But it's worth thinking over."
John @ Powerline - "Liberal Democrats and media figures have tried to create a sense of panic about Iraq: the country is a disaster, the war has been lost, all we can do is find an 'exit strategy' and get out . . . I think what liberals really fear is that Bush's Iraq policy will yet prove successful. By stampeding the country into withdrawal, they can guarantee failure, and blame it on Bush."
Texas Rainmaker - "Last night I went to Taco Bell, and if there’s any place in our country you can go to see the best argument against raising the minimum wage, it’s a fast food restaurant."
Double Bonus:
Ace of Spades - "Comedy Central To Lauch Animated Bush Parody Show . . . A kinda crappy bit of work that has little going for it except it has the all-important Anti-Bush Brand on it. The same thing that keeps marginal talents Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on the air."
Mary Katharine Ham [Townhall] - "Chavez's other grinning dictator buddy would also undoubtedly be pumped about the win if he weren't so dead."
-OMG, they killed Johnny, you bastards!
Now, I knew the President is dumb as a bag of hammers, but I didn't know it's contagious.
This sickens me on so many levels. First that I actually gave this administration and its' leader the benefit of the doubt allot. Second that it takes the liberal media to expose such stupidity.
Let's have a quickie Q&A:
Unless this is what he's talking about when he says this is a new kind of war... Ugh. Fucking ugh is all I can muster now.
U. G. fuckin' H
Namaste to you all.
B
Q- What's the first rule of warfare?
A- Know your enemy.
I'm sorry, it's been hours, but I've only just now stopped slapping my knee, giggling and snorting...
...and Pam wept:
We're screwed . . . Anybody happy about this is an America hater. The tyranny of the minority strikes again.-Oh, ROTFL, that's just got me going again!!!11!
So Robert Gates’ confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin this Tuesday. Here are some questions that I wish someone would ask him before they vote to confirm him anyway.
1. The Iraq Study Group’s report will be released soon to the president and the American people. Does the fact that you served on this group prior to your nomination for Defense Secretary have any bearing on your likelihood to take their recommendations? Will you be willing to give other options from other sources the same weight in your deliberation process over the best way to move forward?
2. Do you intend to continue the Administration’s apparent policy of forcing generals who disagree with you into retirement? Or, rather, do you intend to take all views presented by your advisors as worthy of consideration, acknowledging that they have 20 or 30 years of experience running the military on an operational level, rather than serving primarily in an administrative function for most of their career, as you have?
3. Rumsfeld stated in several media interviews before his resignation that the “center of gravity” in the Iraq war is actually here in America, resting in US public opinion and media. Do you concur with his assessment of the situation? Or might you instead feel that American public opinion is not a military-type force with the ability to change the Iraqi’s ability to continue their insurgency? In your opinion, what IS the “center of gravity” in Iraq and how do you intend to approach dealing with it?
4. I understand that, with regards to the Iran-Contra scandal, you were ultimately found to have been likely to have known what was going on, but there was nothing indictable about your actions, or lack thereof. Whatever your actual level of involvement in that disgraceful scandal of the Reagan administration, how do you feel the Iraqi people will view you because of the perception that you were involved on some level? In other words, do you think that the Iraqi politicians and public will have the same level of trust in your judgment and confidence in your intentions as they would of someone with no connection whatsoever to an era in which the US was providing weapons under the table to aid their enemy in a brutal war? How do you think this perception will impact your ability to convince the Iraqis that whatever new strategy you develop will actually make headway, rather than being the same “stay the course” policy of ineffectiveness we have seen thus far, or, worse, something they view as being against their interests and further disrupting their violent national picture?
5. You were tapped for this job with the express purpose of changing our Iraq policy in some substantial fashion because your predecessor was either unable or unwilling to do so. (In light of the memo released since I wrote this, I maintain that Rumsfeld was offering too little, too late. If he was just going to agree with Murtha’s ideas in the end, he sure could have made some effort to stand up for Murtha while his propagandists in the media were busy throwing eggs at the man in the metaphorical pillory.) However, the President’s spokespeople are still saying that while tactical changes may take place, the President/Commander in Chief intends to maintain the current over-arching strategy because he feels it is right. Should you determine that the strategy is actually untenable and must change, are you willing to advise the President of this view? Given the Rumsfeld memo of 6 Nov., would you fear for your job if the president didn’t care for your view? Would you expect him to take that advice seriously? If not, what is your purpose in this office, other than as a figurehead?
Under some non-volatile situation, I’m sure he wouldn’t be any worse a Defense Secretary than anyone else Bush would pick. Maybe he won’t continue trying to privatize, capitalize, and corporatize the military, like Rummy was trying to do. Maybe he will discontinue the potentially disastrous policy of drawing the military down into some amorphous quick-strike special ops force with a reduced capability to fight a large normal army, even as China continues to build one of those traditional large armies. Or maybe he will continue those policies. I don’t know. While those things are important, those things aren’t why he was purportedly hired. He was hired to deal with Iraq in some different way than what Rumsfeld was doing. Given the advisement that is scheduled to be given to the executive branch over the rest of the month, it is probably unreasonable to expect him to give a direct answer on how he intends to change Iraq policy during the hearings this week. That is unfortunate.
However, I think answers to these questions would give a decent overview of how he intends to handle the decisions surrounding implementing that policy and how he views his own ability to be effective in that effort. I seriously hope that something changes soon for the benefit of the American and Iraqi people. However, I will continue to be heavily skeptical of anything Bush touches. If Bush doesn’t have any intention of listening to anyone or changing anything if he doesn’t feel like it, then they may as well leave Rummy in the Pentagon because, in that situation, the Defense Secretary is serving as an effective shield for criticism directed at the president.
They have a word for that.
Rumsfeld's pre-quit memo urged Iraq shift
Document, confirmed by Pentagon, offered no specific recommendations
Reuters
Updated: 8:21 p.m. ET Dec 2, 2006
WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the White House before he resigned last month the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and he proposed changes, including possible troop reductions, The New York Times reported Saturday. "In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough," Rumsfeld said in the classified memo, dated Nov. 6. The Times posted a copy of the memo along with an article about it on its Web site. The memo's authenticity was confirmed by NBC News and the Pentagon, which declined further comment.
Anti-war Rep. to head House intelligence panel
By Richard CowanReuters
Friday, December 1, 2006; 3:23 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, an Iraq war opponent, will become chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee when Democrats take control of Congress in January, Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.
In choosing Reyes, a former border patrol agent and Vietnam War veteran, Pelosi skipped over two more senior Democrats to head a panel that oversees the conduct of U.S. national security policy and counterterrorism efforts.
As I noted in the comments section over at Blanton's and Ashton's, I am pleasantly surprised to hear the Rep. Reyes received the House Intel Chair. I actually met him once at a ceremony commemorating the opening of a new Deployment Center on Fort Bliss. In case you missed my bitching about the heat while I was in El Paso this summer, it was no different on this occasion back in 02'.
I was the guidon bearer and was up front out in the sun, while the dignitaries watched seated under tent (which the detail I was on had spent the morning setting up). The Congressman got up to speak and was rather brief, siting his concern for those of us out in the sun. It doesn't sound like much, but I've been to plenty other ceremonies where the guest speaker goes on and on until someone literally fall on their face, or backwards onto the soldiers standing behind them in formation. It's no little thing when a public official shows concern for a soldier, and then actually takes direct action.
The following article is very good. It is probably the most insightful writing on the personal aspect of the relationship between soldiers and Iraqis that I have read to date. It was written by a Army Special forces Major. There are many reasons that some of us have believed since the beginning that this "war" in Iraq would be a failure on all levels.
Major Edmond's writing reveals to me a window to a success that might have been -that we might, just might, have had a chance if we had taken a different tact as we began the mission in Iraq. From our President on down to private contractors in Iraq, we should show more respect for the Iraqis and their culture. It may not mean success at this late date, but it could mean the difference between a country that despises us for the next hundred years and a country that realizes that the goal of the American people in Iraq, even most of our pro-war countrymen- was to help them.
Soldiers Story
The picture is of Lieutenant Colonel David Vacchi, US Army, Professor of Military Leadership at UMASS-Amherst.
His story, also a good read, is here: To Iraq and Back
Inevitably a discussion on anything with the majority of Alabamians returns to religion. On the heels of our political discussions my co-worker said it was a-ok to support war and killing, using a biblical perspective. Same setup as before. A bunch of questions and a bunch of “Uhmmmms”.
“Do you support abortion?”
Hell no
“Why not?”
Because it is the taking of an innocent life!
“Innocents are not killed in war?”
Yes
“Then how is it that you can be fine with killing whomever in another country, but abortion is unbelievably wrong?”
Cuz it is.
(Not satisfied with the Cuz I said so argument I pressed. After all, if I wouldn’t accept that as an answer from my parents why would I now?)
At what point is the fetus to be considered alive? Directly to the point when is it “murder”?
At conception.
“At conception a fetus is no different than a pair of amoebas, parameciums (remember them?), or a tumor.”
Yeah but a tumor isn’t going to be a person.
“Granted, but at conception it is a grouping of cells, nothing more. As for myself I believe life starts when you take your first breath.”
How can you say that? Look at the images of sonograms kids sucking their thumbs etc.
“My perspective is Biblical in origin.”(Taken aback by this, he paused. He then asked for backup of my statements.)
“In Genesis it was not until Adam was given the “breath of life” from his Adonai did he become “man”. After all, it’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve right?”
He made mention, though he couldn’t exactly or indirectly quote, of a later verse in which God is professed to have “known” one of the prophets while still in his mother. I believe it was John, or an OT guy. I asked him to provide the same courtesy I had given him to back his argument up. He couldn’t so we moved on.
He made claim that all Muslims are out to kill all Christians. That we are in a state of war, and should live as such. Weapons at the ready locked and loaded.
“Have you ever heard of the Prayer of Saint Francis?”
Nope
“Well, it’s probably just a Catholic thing (saints).” So I recited it for him as I wished for quite awhile to be a Priest. Make me a channel of your peace…
He said he’d heard it somewhere before. I then asked if he felt that Jesus was his brother in the service of god. “Yes” Am I your brother? “Yes” Are all men on the planet your brother, in a biblical sense? “Yes” I asked him to hand me his keys. He obliged. I thumbed through to find the inevitable “WWJD” keychain. I asked him what Jesus would do today. “If he were a citizen of the United States in 2006, what would he be doing?”
I can’t answer that.
“Ok, (allowing him to wiggle out of that one) would he be arming himself?”
Probably not.
“Would he be bombing abortion clinics or school buses?”
No.
“Given what you know about the man, would you say that he, being a peace loving guy who hung around with “whores”, would support our nation’s foreign policies?”
Yes
“How?”
We support Israel.
“Yes we do. But the Israelites were the ones that killed him.”
Yeah, but he was Jesus so he forgave them.
“And so, what would Jesus do in response to 9-11?”
He probably would have forgiven them.
“Is this keychain of yours “WWJD” something to live by?”
Yes
“A maxim of sorts?”
Yup
“So, you hold a keychain that asks “What would Jesus do?” You’ve agreed that he would most likely be “soft” on terrorism or at the very least not support our foreign policies, you claim to live by the man’s examples of peace and fraternity …and you support war?”
Yup“You don’t see hypocrisy in that?”
Nope
I looked at his son who was still standing there waiting for his Dad to lay the smack down on this godless hippie freak which never happened. A light came into his eyes, and he breathed in so as to speak but held back as his eyes traveled to his Dad. His head ducked in silent obedience. He saw his father had just gotten his ass kicked again in an argument he felt to be his strong suit. We continued, and he related how the world was going to end soon, in his lifetime, and how great heaven’s going to be.
I asked him to remove himself from that thought process for one second (Believe me God won’t mind) is that a healthy process to guide our foreign policies? Well if it’s true, then yes. “What if it’s not true?”
Well, if you’ve read the bible in the New…
“Testament in the books of the Apocalypse it says, blah ditty blah. Name me one thing that was prophesized in the New Testament or old that has come true.”
Jesus was born as the Messiah.
“Well, the majority of the world’s population disagrees with that perspective. So, given that this world is going to end in our lifetime, our foreign policies should reflect that thought, even though it may not end in our lifetime? That’s being a little ignorant to the possibilities no?”
Maybe….
Then the owner yelled (not really) that we were extremely busy and we were not at Trinity College, my name isn’t Martin Luther and his wasn’t John Calvin…
And so I made people food to eat, and he cussed under his breath.
So for the rest of the night I sang the Prayer of Saint Francis to myself (it is a lovely poem) and asked myself what would Jesus do?
Garcin: There's no more hope - but it's still "before."
We haven't yet begun to suffer. [72]
Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08
Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A01
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.
The Democratic Party is now prostrate with its prospects for 08'. It stands to gain significantly with the amount of House and Senate seats that are in play. Not to mention the first open seat since 1928 for President. Despite a mandate from the voters, they will play it safe, not wanting to alienate their new found Independent constituency, thus weakening their chances for 08'.
Signs the road is getting bumpy (and its not even January yet):
Medicare Part D
Enacting the 911 Commission Recommendations
-They still have a chance if they are aggressive and revealing with hearings in the House and Senate. But don't expect any promises, implied or otherwise, to be fulfilled by the Democratic Party regarding Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
