British leaving Iraq, but no worries!

A British convoy in Southern Iraq last week. No truth to the rumor that they are driving straight to the Chunnel, across the English Channel and back to Great Britain.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under the gun in his own country, so I certainly understand the absolute necessity for his wanting to bring some British troops home.

What's quite another matter is the spin doctoring that the White House, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, put on the British withdraw.

The White House lamely tried to couch Blair's move in a positive light, saying the British pulling their troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra is a sign of "some progress in Basra." The British have been responsible for policing Basra since the the invasion.

Cheney is just flat out bonkers, floating above the rest of us in some alternative reality. From halfway across the globe, Shooter intoned that the British pullback is evidence that there are some areas of Iraq where "things are going pretty well."

If they are going that well, Dick, then why are we sending more troops over there? What's more, the British draw down will certainly put added pressure on already taxed U.S. forces. Blair said that Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq over the "coming months" and aims to cut its 7,100-strong force to below 5,000 by late summer, if local forces can secure the southern part of the country. He also announced that British troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and maintain supply routes to U.S. and coalition troops in central Iraq.

However, take a look at the anti-war protests in London over the weekend...

This protest took place in central London on Saturday, February 24.

Above, another offensive picture from the central London protest, with Old Glory splattered with blood. I don't enjoy these pictures any more than the next American, but it certainly is an indication of how far our fortunes have fallen around the world. Anyone else remember The Star-Spangled Banner being played outside of Buckingham Palace on September 11? I do. If we've lost our closest ally, then the president and his advisors should be taking a close look at our participation in this war. But, Shooter Cheney and Dubya insist on our current course of action, which is to escalate the war by 21,000 more Americans, because, conceivably, we have a chance at "victory."

I didn't think I'd agree with John McCain on just about anything, but I agree with his statement that he made over the weekend about how the War in Iraq "may cost him his career." He made similar statements about Tony Blair. At this point, who can disagree? Only time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if both of McCain's remarks turn out to be true.

Another interesting development last week - Finland announced it's bringing all of its troops home, and Lithuania is also considering bring home its remaining troops. That begs the question - who's left? The answer is not many - we now comprise about 94% of the troops in Iraq. That's some coalition, Mr. President.

The only encouraging thing about the British pullout, quite frankly, was Barack Obama's comments, which were steeped in reality.

Obama, speaking at a rally in Austin, Texas, said Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is proof that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" said Obama. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

That's a pretty good start to what I hope all of the Democratic candidates continue to do over the next 18 months or so - make Bush, Cheney & company eat their words about the War in Iraq.

You can even go back to Tom DeLay's quotation about the War in Kosovo to get an illustration about our situation in Iraq (bear with me). Here it is, from the New York Times April 29, 1999 edition:

"Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face?" asked Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority whip. Sharply criticizing the NATO bombing campaign, he said: ''What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."

Was DeLay talking about Kosovo or Iraq? About Kosovo, he was dead wrong, but if you use this quote about Iraq, it's spot on. And I love his point about Vietnam. We proved nothing by staying there and saving face, just as we aren't now. By the way, you know I'm feeling pretty strongly about this if I'm using a DeLay quotation - a man I despise with every fiber of my being.

Sadly, it seems that our reality-show-based society has a memory span of about two weeks, so it's up to the Democrats to remind all voters of the lies, distortions and rosy predictions that were made (and continue to be made) about this war.

I can't wait for 2008.

Third photo from top from The Huffington Post
All other photos from AP

Stay the Course & Cut 'N Run - DOA

This is one of my favorite pieces from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Personally, there's nothing sweeter than the Bush White House getting caught in a lie (Tony Snow in this case), and it's not hard to find cases of it these days. (Or the old political stand-by, the half-truth that Clinton made so famous.)

President Bush has been preaching "Stay the Course in Iraq" to the American people for well over two years now. Funny what the potential of your party getting its ass kicked in an upcoming election can do to your point of view. Iraq is getting bloodier and bloodier, and more and more Americans are dying (over 100 in October now), and for what? To try to impose Democracy on a Middle Eastern country that simply does not want us there? Nearly 70% of Iraqis in a recent poll want us OUT, yet this administration arrogantly plows ahead, unwilling and/or unable to admit its terrible mistake.

Funny how the president just smirks that arrogant smirk of his and says, with a straight face, "We've never been stay the course." How fucking stupid does he think the American public is? Evidently, pretty stupid.

And, Sean Insannity jumps right on the bandwagon, parroting the White House line on official state TV, Fox News.

I'm sure the phrase sounded good to Republicans when they started using it for Iraq, just like Cut and Run. I'm so sick of these slick PR gimmicks that Republicans dream up, but I've got to give them credit - they seem to be better at the PR game than Democrats.

Probably my favorite non-war related GOP PR euphemism is the Death Tax. Sorry, folks, but I'm not for millionaires inheriting wealth and paying no taxes. The rich need to pay their fair share, too. If Democrats were smart, they would call the Death Tax the "Paris Hilton Lifetime Laziness Tax" or something like that. Look at it this way - if I hit the lottery, I pay wicked taxes. Why? It's unearned income! On the other hand, if I ever inherit $25 million (yea, that's happenin'!), that's also unearned, and should be taxed. I'm no economist, but that's my take. The deficit shouldn't skyrocket so Republicans can line the beds of their rich benefactors. It's such a no-brainer ~ I'm not going to collect my Social Security check when I turn 70 (hell, it will be 80 by the time I retire if I live that long), so country club kids can collect fat trusts from Mommy and Daddy? Hmmm, that's really a tough one!

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand - Cut & Run is another one I get a kick out of. This one sooo smacks of Vietnam it isn't even funny at all. No one wants to look like a pussy, so all legislators in Washington puff their chests out and say, "I'm not for cutting and running." Hey assholes, I wonder how many of you have sons and daughters in the line of fire? I'm sure there are a few, but probably damn few. This is the same kind of reasoning that gave us Vietnam, and 58,000+ dead Americans - because no one had the courage to say, "This isn't working - we gave it our best shot, but it's time to bring 'em home." (Cue tape of Richard Nixon, campaigning in '68 that he had a secret plan to end the war, and he did! A five-year plan - the cease-fire was signed in January of '73.)

So what if pulling out costs someone an election - sometimes doing the right thing is a helluva lot more important than winning an election. And besides, to be rankly materialistic for a second - all ex-presidents become millionaires these days, and Bush will be no exception, nor will his successors.

So, the real question is, how many dead Americans will it take before someone who really can make a difference will say, "Enough is enough." I'm not holding my breath and I seriously doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

Regardless of what happens a week from Tuesday, you can bet your ass that Bush will indeed change policy in Iraq after November 7. This course simply cannot continue.

We need to send a message to these morons in Washington, and we need to do it in eight days. This is bigger than party politics now - it's about American lives.

The whole "Support the Troops" silliness really makes me full hot, too. Any Republican who says that we shouldn't question military actions while troops are in the field has no idea what this country is founded upon and doesn't deserve to hold public office, period. "Support the Troops" is another way of saying, "Keep your mouth shut." Ain't happenin', capt'n.

For those of you with short memories, I have many, many recollections of Republicans asking lots of very public questions during the War in Kosovo, calling Clinton incompetent, a liar and worse. (Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Rick Santorum, Orin Hatch, I could go on and on.) A few quick questions about that war - 1. Was the intelligence cooked? 2. Did Clinton try to cook the intelligence? 3. Did we succeed? 4. Oh, and how many troops did we lose again?

Ain't history a bitch?

Get out and vote!

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 is primary day for voters in Pa. It's time to get out and support candidates of change. Those candidates are Ed Rendell for governor and Bob Casey Jr. for U.S. Senate. Take a look at the pictures and you'll soon see why I feel that way. Their respective opponets, Republicans Lynn Swann and incumbent Senator Rick Santorum, align themselves with the failed policies of the Bush administration. And it's time to soundly and roundly reject this administration, and the best way to do that is the voting booth.

I don't support Rendell and Casey strictly because they are Democrats, but that has a large part to do with it. I support them because they can and I hope they will be effective agents of change here in Pennsylvania and in Congress. Rendell can help Democrats capture the White House in 2008 and hopefully part of Congress in '06 and '08; and Casey can help overthrow the out-of-touch Republican Congress. I'm confident they both will.

Both candidates are not without warts. Rendell hasn't done much in the way of property tax relief, and that's being charitable. He can, should and must do more. The fact that the legislature is ruled by Republicans doesn't help, but an effective governor much reach across the aisle and compromise and help his constituents. If anything, it's again the lesser of two evils. Sure, Swann was and is a likable guy going back to his football days with the Pittsburgh Steelers. But, for starters, here's a guy who hasn't even bothered to vote in elections. Get more on that story Here, and it's from the Philadelphia Inquirer, not some campaign Website. And his campaign manager's explaination of it was even worse than Swann not voting. To make matters worse, Swann could have just about the best positions on just about everything, but seeing the picture above of him with the president completely turns me off. (It also underscores the fact that if he's foolish enough to align himself with this immensely unpopular president, his candidacy probably is and should be doomed.)

Casey is a pro-lifer, and that's the biggest thing that turns me off about him. But, Santorum is even more of an ardent pro-lifer, so that subject's a wash. Moving on to other topics - Casey is the clear winner. Again, just look at the picture of Slick Rick with Bush above, and you see all you need to see. From his homophobic comments, to his brown nosing the president's decision to slap tarriffs on imported steel to his criticism of Clinton's decision to intervene in Kosovo and his taking part in blocking most Clinton's judicial nominees in the Senate long before Democrats did it to Bush, Santorum's been on the wrong side of many issues, and it's time for him and his fellow Republicans to be relieved of their control in the Senate.

Okay, I'm off my soap box. Whatever your opinion, get out there and vote - it's the right thing to do, and the single biggest thing you can do to bring about change in our country and in your respective state.

Registered but don't know where to go to vote? No matter where you're livin', click Here to find out where to go to click that lever.

-For Pennsylvanians- Not registered to vote? Make sure you register for the hyper-critical fall elections by clicking Here.

By voting, getting informed and even becoming involved in your local, state and national campaigns, you can make a difference and help all of us take back our country, no matter your political persuasion.

Go Big Blue.

Debunking the "Support The Troops" sheep mentality

I had an interesting conversation with a guest in the restaurant the other day. She noticed the "Count Me Blue" bracelet that I've been wearing since the disastrous 2004 elections. I wear it with pride, but I'm not obnoxiously political (in person at least - this blog notwithstanding!), and I certainly won't discuss politics at work unless pressed. Anyway, she asked me what the bracelet meant, and I told her.

"Dumb Democrats," she teased, and we had a good laugh about it. Hey, I can take a ribbing, even about my political affiliations.

Then she said something that pissed me off. "I just don't like it when people don't support the troops," she whined. "People shouldn't criticize the troops while they are in the field."

I just smiled and walked off. Hey, I was at work, and alienating tables is never a good idea, especially when I'm working for a tip... and guests' hoped-for generosity. Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more angry I became.

On the drive home, I couldn't help but think of the trite but apropos quote often attributed to Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." In the case of the war in Iraq, I have a hard time disagreeing.

I'm about had my fill of people, Republicans mostly, using the whole "Support the Troops" mantra to attempt to silence critics of the president's ill-conceived war in the Middle East. I often hear this from supporters of the president's policy in Iraq, and this includes Republican leaders who decry criticism of the use of our troops in Iraq: "People should not criticize the use of troops once they are in the field. The president made the decision, and they are there, so let's get behind them."

People who parrot the above quote without analyzing our troops use and deployment don't understand America, Democracy and freedom, and I'd also like to point out that these people have a very short memory span.

During the War in Kosovo, when President Clinton was in the Oval Office, it certainly was a different story. Let's travel back in time, shall we?

From Texas Governor George W. Bush...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Do I need to comment on the irony there?

From Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R)...

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

Don't worry, Rick. Your time is just about up, and come November, you will hopefully be home, unemployed, where you can ponder your hypocrisy and obsess over new ways on how to exclude homosexuals.

From Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of candidate George W. Bush...

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

From Tom Delay (Remember him?!?)...

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

AND...

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Was this about Kosovo in 1999, or Iraq in 2006? Can Tom DeLay see into the future? That would be the one quality that would be admirable in him.

AND...

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

Okay, enough on DeLay. The irony here is thicker than his corruption file.

From Tony Snow (yes, THAT Tony Snow, the new White House Press Secretary)...

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." (Fox News, 3/23/99)

Lastly, from Sean Hannity of Republican News Channel fame...

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" (Fox News, 4/6/99)

AND...

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." (Fox News, 4/5/99)

Sure, Sean - we distort, you decide. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The bottom line here is that Americans have every right to not only criticize why the troops were put into harm's way in Iraq in the first place, but whey they are still there. There is clear evidence that not enough troops were sent to do the job, and they are walking targets right now. I'm reminded of a John Kerry quote from Vietnam, and I'm paraphrasing to fit the war in Iraq: "Do you want to die in a hot, miserable land where the people mostly don't want us, all for a lie?" Oh, wait - Kerry was a coward - he went to Vietnam and won three purple hearts. Beetle Bailey has more combat experience than Dick and Bush. I'm always amazed when men who don't know the price of war are quick to rush into one. This was the argument that Republicans used against Clinton the "draft dodger" in '92, but it was inconvenient for them when Bush became president.

Another thing that annoys me is when I hear people who get annoyed with criticism of Bush or the way the country is headed. "If you don't like the US, leave!" they obnoxiously suggest. I always laugh when I hear this one. My first thought on that is, if you don't like the criticism, you leave. This is how a democracy works - people, events and policies get criticized, debated and analyzed - so deal with it.

Republicans continue to point out that many Democrats, including Kerry, voted for the war. Yep, they did, at first, when the "intelligence" was presented to them. When it was later revealed by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and others who were in the administration when these decisions were made that the intelligence was cooked, many Democrats said, "Wait a minute here." Then Republicans, hoping that people really weren't paying attention, simply said that the Democrats were flip floppers. Yea, right.

Democrats have the right to change their minds when new evidence comes to light, just as all Americans do, whether troops are in the field or not. Opinions evolve as events unfold. I'm still amazed that people continue to use the whole "We should support the troops while they are in the field" mantra. It's just a thinly disguised attempt to tell me to shut up. Well, I won't shut up, and I don't think any American should, as long as our troops continue to get cut down in the prime of their lives over lies about WMDs and the "threat" that Saddam posed.

If bin Laden wore a blue dress, the Republican-controlled Congress would have found him by now. Let's rename him Osama bin Lewinsky and send that scumbag Ken Starr after him. I'd give it about five days and we'd have Osama's head on a stick.