I've seen some good I told you so's before, but this one from Scott Ritter is really, REALLY good. (Hat Tip: Firedoglake)
FoxNews loves them some W? Maybe. But even the people they poll are fed up. A new low: 33%!
Kevin Drum has an absolute must read on our failed diplomatic approach with Iran. Apparently a few years back they offered to make a "grand bargain," but the Cheney faction of our national security apparatus rejected it outright. Remember that Cheney was always the one in Reagan's administration who most vehemently opposed negotiating with Gorby. He always swore up and down it was all a trick to get us to drop our guard. At least he man is consistent - he's always on the WRONG side of history!
Speaking of the Reagan/Bush years, it looks like Peggy Noonan has turned even more fiercely anti-Bush in the last few weeks. She always has had a way with words. Nice to see she's using them for good finally.
CarpetBagger has some good analysis of a piece by Kurt Anderson begging for a third party that falls in the mythical center of American politics. CB's analysis is dead on - what Anderson is looking for is the modern Democratic Party. He just doesn't see it yet. But that's how I've always believed realignments work. First you abandon the party the party you've been loyal to, then a new leader comes along that forces you to rethink and reevaluate the party you once opposed. Anderson sees Dems as the party of George McGovern, but that era ended the moment Clinton won. But missing what's right in front of us is just part of human nature. When we think we're right, we humans are quite resistant to changing our minds, and we usually do so only after the evidence becomes overwhelming. Anderson's half way there - he recognizes that his old patter of behavior no longer works. Now all he needs to do is recognize that the answer to his dilemma - a party that's "fiscally responsible, supports single-payer health care, will fight a genuine war on terrorists but recognizes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, takes the separation of church and state seriously, and is pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-trade, pro-science, and pro-diversity" is right in front of his face.
You see the protester who broke up the president's special moment with Chinese President Hu? The sequence of events is fascinating. First Bush waxes poetic about the need for China to allow its people freedom to protest. Then the woman erupts in protest. Then she is hauled off in handcuffs. And now she may be charged with intimidating or disrupting foreign officials. I have to ask - is the president not bright enough to understand just how wrong that is? Once again, fate handed him a golden opportunity to demonstrate everything this country stands for, and once again, he made precisely the WRONG choice.
Which is actually related to why Bush won't fire Rumsfeld. As Russert says, "firing Rumsfeld would be like firing himself".
But regardless, it looks like the generals aren't backing down. Retired Army General John Batiste has a blistering op-ed in today's WaPo. and it is a direct response to the defense offered up by Rummy yesterday afternoon. He's getting specific. VERY specific. A taste:
| We went to war with the wrong war plan. Senior civilian leadership chose to radically alter the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning, which was improved and approved, year after year, by previous secretaries of defense, all supported by their associated chairmen and Joint Chiefs of Staffs. Previous planning identified the need for up to three times the troop strength we committed to remove the regime in Iraq and set the conditions for peace there. Building the peace is a tough business; for a host of reasons, it requires boots on the ground.
Our current leadership decided to discount professional military advice and ignore more than a decade of competent military planning. It failed to consider military lessons learned, while displaying ignorance of the tribal, ethnic and religious complexities that have always defined Iraq. We took down a regime but failed to provide the resources to build the peace. The shortage of troops never allowed commanders on the ground to deal properly with the insurgency and the unexpected. What could have been a deliberate victory is now a long, protracted challenge. The national embarrassment of Abu Ghraib can be traced right back to strategic policy decisions. We provided young and often untrained and poorly led soldiers with ambiguous rules for prisoner treatment and interrogation. We challenged commanders with insufficient troop levels, which put them in the position of managing shortages rather than leading, planning and anticipating mission requirements. The tragedy of Abu Ghraib should have been no surprise to any of us. |
Keep reading. It's worth your time. And then head over to The Belgravia Dispatch, where Gregory Djerejian just decimates the talking points used by those on the right to push back against the mounting criticism. Djerejian was a vocal supporter of the war, and he still believes it can be won, so this isn't anti-war partisanship at work here.
And last but not least, in my plea for why every vote in the Senate matters, I offer this piece from TalkLeft that demonstrates the agenda of the current party in power:
| A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.
President Bush's request for the emergency appropriations to cover costs of the continuing war and Hurricane Katrina recovery operations included no money for the troubled V-22 Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane[...] The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people. The Marine Corps says the program has gotten back on track since then despite an incident last month in which a V-22 momentarily took flight on its own. To pay for the Ospreys, the Senate Appropriations Committee - guided by the Corps - cut into funding for night vision goggles, equipment for destroying mines and explosives, fire suppression systems for light armored vehicles and new vehicles that can be transported into battle inside the V-22. |
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: QUICK HITS.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/215
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment