Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Russian president Valdimir Putin has described our president in one word: "predictable".
What we heard tonight was a mission without time containing equivocal objectives predicated on justification of all ensuing events related to 9-11.
The theme of a stable and democratic Iraq is a myth and the explanations, clarifications, and litany of mistakes and failures of the Bush administration inflict continuing hardships on us all.

Jim,
The Bush administration has the US and it's allies in a quagmire in Iraq which has been borne from it's policy in Iraq. The duration of the quagmire is in question since secretary of defense Rumsfeld offered eight, ten, or twelve years before he sees a light at the end of a tunnel. The latter "light at the end of the tunnel" is supposed to be accomplished by the Iraqis so, if you buy Cheney's assertion that the insurgency is "in it's last throes," it is the Iraqis that should be determining their own policies without continued direct involvement of the United States. Out of all of this comes George W Bush who, according to his last speech on the matter, clearly stated one principal: "stay the course". Jim, you need to recall Bush never used the word "insurgents" in his speech and instead referred to them as "terrorists." President Bush has referred to the war on terror as a new kind of a war and one that will likely go on for a long time such as forever. So you see, Jim, the war in Iraq, as plainly now described by the Bush administration, is a war against terror which is why we are there to begin with. Remember Ms Rice stated, "This war(in Iraq) came to us and not the other way around."
So while it is up to the Iraqis to establish their own policies, it is up to the US to fight the war. Get it? The meaningful realistic changes you are asking about can also come from sources like the UN or from countries like France who offered to train Iraqi officers in Iraq but were denied by the Bush administration. Since Cheney said he thought the war would be concluded by 2008 or '09, an expectation of a partial reduction in US troop forces would not be unrealistic. But remember Jim, Bush says we are fighting a war against terrorists in Iraq so we have to stay the course and the war is likely to be a long one and it's a new kind of a war so...

A cnn/usa today/ gallup poll noted americans feel the war in Iraq has made them less safe. Now a report from the Chatham House, a British think tank, echoes those feelings and states the situation in Iraq has provided a "boost to Al Queda network's propaganda, recruitment and fund raising" and has provided "an ideal training ground for Al-Queda-linked terrorists."
The report goes on to state the war in Iraq has "deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist Afghan president Karzai and to bring Bin Laden to justice."
The report further states the government of the UK "had been conducting counter terrorism shoulder to shoulder to the US, not in the sense of being an equal decision maker, but rather as a pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat."
Finally, the report concludes, "there is no doubt the situation in Iraq has imposed difficulties for the UK and for the wider coalition against terrorism."
The only US policy, of course, will simply be one: more of the same...

Have we got a winner now or what? Bush's choice is clearly the best man for the job! Just feast your eyes and look:
1.Qualifications? Look buster, this guy used to be a supreme court justice clerk! I mean whoppe freakin do!!! In his private practice he was basically a walmart style corporate lawyer consistently arguing on behalf of big business: the guy is perfect!!! He even worked for Bush's daddy and argued on behalf of Bush junior in the Florida vote: well, the guy's got to get his politics from someplace, right?
2. There's no beating around the bush with this guy, when asked if he really meant it when he argued that Roe vs Wade was a sham decision, he was just arguing a ho hum decision! Meanwhile, his main competition for the job described her beliefs on the matter of Roe vs Wade as being "definitive." I mean the nerve of that witch to actually take a stand and speak her mind! Bush should send her butt packing to Iraq! Today!
3. So the guy's a Roman Catholic and won't state how he really feels about abortion rights. What's to know? I mean there's no potential for home grown bias with this guy, right?
4. Everybody's wondering about this guys qualifications for the job because there's no paper trail: he's perfect!!! No messy e-mails to worry about: what you see is what you get!!!

PBS news reported up to 4000 UN troops may be deployed to Afghanistan ahead of upcoming elections to join the 1000 UN troops already in the country. The reporter referred to the UN troops as IRON or IZAD troops or something akin to those designations.
My question from the news story is this: if UN troops are in Afghanistan then why not in Iraq? My google search on "UN troops in Afghanistan" has the info about them but when I search for "UN troops in Iraq", I get a story about the Bush administration and the pentagon being unwilling to accept them. Why the heck not?

Bush castigated the minutemen by calling them "vigilantes". The Bush administration opposed the efforts of the minutement to slow the tidal wave of illegal immigration from across our broken borders.
That was a few months ago...
Today, Robert Bonner, a chieftain in the Bush hierachy, has directed his border patrol to begin a cooperative effort with the minutemen to further slow the tidal wave. Jim Gilcrest, the founder of the minutemen and a resident of Orange county California, initially couldn't believe it but is now apparently delighted at the turn of events. His minutemen will become the "eyes and ears" of the border patrol, as per Mr Bonner. Mr Gilcrest likened the change of heart of the Bush administration as an "awakening"!
Perhaps there's hope for Cochise county Az yet!

CNN carried a news report on the tube the other night entitled "A Progress Report on Iraq."
A significant portion of the report was devoted to an interview with those either commanding or having direct contact with the insurgency. First, an insurgent commander identified himself to the extent of being a former general under Saddam. He provided his original uniform with identifying features that would tend to substantiate his claim. Moreover, he also stated the training for the insurgency began five months prior to the anticipated invasion of Iraq by the US. He also provided a videotape of soon-to-be insurgents snaking their way through flaming pipes in their training period. The insurgent commander appeared relaxed as well as confident and determined and noted the insurgents have more than enough men, money and arms. He claims a standing force of 200,000 insurgents while he placed his losses at 10,000 dead, 10,000 wounded and 30,000 captured or detained. If his claim of 200,000 insurgents is accurate, it would exceed US forces in Iraq by 60,000. By contrast, US accounts of the size of the insurgency vary considerably and defy credibility. For example, the size of the insurgency reported in the news accounts have varied from as little as about 5,000 to as much as 25,000. If these figures are correct and the claimed number of dead, wounded, and detained insurgents are subtracted from the figures reported, you would not find very much evidence of a standing insurgency in Iraq. However, we do find evidence of 300-400 insurgent attacks per week in Iraq which would lend credibility to the claim of a much larger insurgency than previously reported. A shiek claimed there is a "culture of insurgency" in Iraq and each time the US mounts an offensive such as operation spear or dagger, the insurgency actually increases in size with new recruits obtained as a direct result of US military activity.
Rumsfeld has refused to provide an estimate of the size of the insurgency, stating this is an intelligence matter. Senators like McCain have argued the US forces on the ground and the American people need to know what we are up against. It would seem we are finding this out from the insurgents themselves rather than our own government...

CNN has reported that two essentially identical quotes from an unidentified Iraqi regarding two different bombings were released from Task Force Baghdad and the US military now expresses regret over the reports. CNN goes on to state, "the military quoted an Iraqi calling the attackers "enemies of humanity" and vowing to "take the fight to the terrorists", the latter an expression president Bush frequently has used in speeches." Both of the quotes from an "unidentified Iraqi" were released after an attack on Sunday and initially after an attack on July 13.
So we either have an unidentified Iraqi who get's around town after viewing the latest bombings and issues identical statements after each one which happen to match Bush's rhetoric or we have some enterprising soul at army command following in the footsteps of his commander-in-chief. Perhaps the US miltary now hires an "rent an Iraqi" for the latest appraisal of this weeks hit parade. You've heard of "rent a wreck" right? Well, now we've got Joe Iraqi who sounds an awefull lot like a stand-in for GWB...

Both MSN and CNN have reported the remarks of a top US miltary commander in Iraq who has stated, " "I do believe we'll be able to take some very substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer of next year."
Hmm, the general said, "there is no agreement on how many insurgents are battling coalition forces." That's not exactly reassuring. Nor is last week's report from the pentagon which states, "171,000 Iraqi security forces are now trained and equipped but only 2,500 are capable of mounting counter-insurgency operations on their own." Nor is the call from the Iraqi defense minister who stated, " it was time for a co-ordinated plan to transition from the American to the Iraqi military and urged it be done in a speedy fashion."
So we have our top commander saying we can go and the Iraqi's second the motion. Don't forget the american public, wherein a CNN poll recently stated 60% don't believe the US will be able to establish a stable permanent government in Iraq. So why stay? The top general says we can go and the Iraqis want us out and the american public doesn't believe our presence will not help the Iraqis anyway so let's go. I didn't read any blurbs about Bush's war against terror in Iraq from the general or the Iraqi defense minister and the public doesn't buy it either so let's get the show on the road, hey GIs, start packing!

Senate majority leader Bill Frist reversed himself yesterday and now supports stem cell research opposed by Bush. Frist, a heart lung surgeon, finally recognized reality and stated, "It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science." This stance immediately drew the ire of the christain defense coalition which issued a terse statement: "Senator Frist should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding."
Frist jabbed at the Bush policy by stating, "While embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases."
So Bush will now likely face the inevitable task of vetoing a bill that is supported by both houses and, according to various polls, by the majority of americans as well. But not to worry, an ultraconservative republican nutcase has already threatened to filibuster the bill in order to "save his president from the embarrassment of having to veto a bill supported by his own party." And, of course, Bush himself is guided by the eternal light that only he can see so we will all be saved from further research...