Those Washington warmongers just don't give up, do they?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday that it "makes sense" to have a pause in troop reductions in July. In other words, the military is going to discontinue bringing troops home for ... well, they don't know how long:

Gates made his comments after meeting with the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who recently said he would recommend a "pause" in withdrawals after 22,000 U.S. troops return home.

"A period of brief consolidation probably does make sense," Gates said. He did not indicate how long the pause would last or what would happen after that.

[...]

A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad told CNN recently that Petraeus feels strongly there should be a period of review before he makes any decisions about additional troop withdrawals.

The official said there is "no determined length" of the pause, but Petraeus wants to "let the dust settle" from the first round of reductions so he can assess the security situation. The already-announced reductions will result in about 22,000 troops returning to their home bases.

"We expect there will be additional troop reductions," the official added, but the pause means Petraeus is not ready to say when they will be -- or even when he will make his recommendations about future reductions.

Well, of course Petraeus would say that. He's had a hard-on for war for years. Petraeus' hardline stance (no, I don't know how wide it is, and I'd rather not think about it) is the very reason he's ruining the show in Iraq.

Did I say "ruining?" I meant "running." Oh well, it works either way ...

Let's see ... the "pause" in the "drawdown" after the "surge" will begin in July ... four months before the "presidential election" in which "Huggy Bear" advocates "a hundred years" of war in Iraq. Maybe I need to adjust my tin-foil hat, but the timing is, well, interesting.

Poll dancing

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has a poll up on their front page (you may have to scroll down to vote):

Momentum is building in Congress to force President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. What do you think should happen?

• We should begin withdrawing now.


• We should stay until we achieve our goals.


• We should wait until the current "surge" campaign has ended, then decide.

As I write this, with 2797 votes tallied, by better than a two to one margin (66.9%), respondents are saying withdraw now. This compares with 14.6% who are demented Bush fluffers say "stay until we achieve our goals" and 18.5% who are moronic brownshirt fucks say let the surge go on ...

You know what to do ...

UPDATE (5:49 pm 7/18/07): There's a different poll up now, but you ought to vote in it anyway ...

Should Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle resign for making repeated comments that gay and lesbian residents have found offensive?

• Yes.


• No.


• I'm not sure.

This one's too close for comfort right now. 52.4% say yes, 46.1% no, 1.5% not sure (3898 total responses).

Feel the surge!

But at least the Fetus-Americans are protected.

BAGHDAD - Five U.S. troops were killed over the weekend in Iraq, the military said Monday, pushing the death toll for April past 100 in the deadliest month for American forces this year.

[...]

The killings of the Americans came as U.S. troops have been increasingly deployed on the streets of Baghdad and housed with Iraqi troops in joint security operations away from their heavily fortified bases, raising their vulnerability to attacks.

Three American soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed by a roadside bomb while on a combat patrol Sunday in eastern Baghdad, the military said. A U.S. soldier was slain Saturday by small arms fire in the same part of the city — a predominantly Shiite area where American and Iraqi forces have stepped up operations as part of the nearly 11-week-old operation to quell sectarian violence.

A Marine also was killed Sunday in Anbar province, a Sunni insurgent stronghold west of the capital, the military said.

The sad thing is that the Bush crime syndicate and those who support it and the failed "war" insist that this is a win-or-lose situation. You can't win if you don't have an objective to achieve, and presumably the original objective already was achieved, meaning we won.

Now, the only way to "win" is to save Americans' lives by bringing them home. Conversely, we lose more and more with each life that is lost, and each family that grieves.

Drunky McStagger's only real achievement has been to make the followers and heirs of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding happy. Now none of them can be considered the worst president in history anymore.

McCain: I see your 21,000 and raise you ...

St. John McCain, the erstwhile "maverick" turned right-wing nutjob, left a trail of oratorical devastation in Florida yesterday.

At a campaign stop in Vero Beach, he said the surge is too small:

The U.S. senator from Arizona said the war has been badly managed and he would "like to send more troops" than President Bush is planning to send in an effort to end the violence in Iraq.

McCain spoke to a crowd of nearly 1,000 attending the Riverside Theatre Distinguished Lecture Series held at the Community Church of Vero Beach.

He also bitch-slapped Rummy ...

Earlier in the day during a stop in South Carolina, McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, blamed mismanagement of war on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling him "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

And he made fun of a foreign leader ...

McCain also called the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "a dangerous regime." In an aside, McCain said he "refuses to learn how to pronounce the name" of the Iranian leader.

Seriously, with clowns like McCain and Romney among the "front-runners" for the 2008 GOP preznitshul nomination, the Democrats could nominate a toaster for president and still win in a landslide.

Two House Democrats voted against the anti-surge resolution

And here they are:

Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)

Gene Taylor (D-Miss.)

Tell Reps. Marshall and Taylor how you feel about their votes in support of the surge.

UPDATE (12:22 am 2/19/07): Here's Jim Marshall explaining his vote:



The salient language:

We're debating today a non-binding resolution to disapprove the Iraqi -- American military surge in Baghdad. We do so knowing Congress cannot manage a war, let alone micromanage one. We do so knowing the surge has begun and will continue despite our debate and vote. We do so hoping our debate will not discourage those called upon to execute the surge. But we also do so knowing that it might.

Mr. Speaker, that's enough for me to oppose the resolution. I will vote "no" on the anti-surge resolution despite the fact that for three years now, I have consistently contended that we should have fewer troops in Iraq, not more. Clearly, the surge is inconsistent with my general view of how to make our effort in Iraq sustainable and winnable. But the anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team's play because we don't like the coach's call.

I cannot join mid-play naysaying that might discourage even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.

No, Rep. Marshall, your analogy doesn't hold water. People who boo their coach buy a ticket for that privilege. I've been going to Buccaneers games for almost ten years, and I boo Jon Gruden all the time. Of course, I also cheer him when he does something right.

Our ticket to this game (and I don't mean to diminish the efforts of our military by using the word "game") is citizenship, and we boo or cheer our "coaches" by casting votes and by participating in critical dialogue. See, the thing is, Drunky McStagger hasn't done anything right in Iraq, and he deserves all the boos we can give him. (Hell, he deserves impeachment, but that's beyond the scope of this post ...)

I wouldn't worry about discouraging our troops, Rep. Marshall. I'd much rather discourage them than waste their lives on Drunky's vendetta.

Okay, then, how 'bout half a surge?

Hey, we can fix Baghdad for only half as many lives troops as Bush wants, sez Gen. Casey.

Gen. George Casey said he had asked for two additional Army brigades, based on recommendations of his subordinate commanders. Bush announced Jan. 10 that he would send five extra brigades as part of a buildup that would total 21,500 soldiers and Marines.

Asked by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., why he had not requested the full five extra brigades that Bush is sending, Casey said, "I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission."

I guess if at first you don't succeed ...

The neo-con mantra

Hearing the last remaining supporters of the war in Iraq and the surge and all that -- like John McCain, Drunky McStagger himself, and now Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) -- I think the best metaphor for their feelings comes from that cinematic epic, Animal House. Specifically, Kevin Bacon's character ...

Remain calm!! All is well!!

The urge to surge is verging on a scourge

If you didn't like the original surge, maybe you'll enjoy Surge II: Electric Boogaloo.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider more troops for Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say the Taliban insurgency, controlled from Pakistan, is expected to intensify.

Gates, in Afghanistan to ensure commanders have the resources to counter an expected Taliban offensive in the spring, said it was very important the United States and its allies did not let the success achieved there slip away.

[...]

Asked how many more troops might be sent, he said: "It depends on different scenarios and those are the kinds of decisions that we're going to have to look at."

There are more than 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the highest level since 2001, about 22,000 of them American.

Remember Afghanistan? The place where the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks purportedly was? I know it's hard to remember, what with the four-year-long personal vendetta of Drunky McStagger still in high gear, but think back ...

At some point, you have to question: do we actually have enough troops to handle all these surges?

Hell, we might not be done yet. There's Iran, of course, and even ...

NATO spokesman Brigadier Richard Nugee also cited a Pakistani attack on a militant camp in its South Waziristan tribal region on Tuesday as an example of efforts to coordinate with Pakistan.

Gates, who left Afghanistan later on Wednesday, said Pakistan was "an extraordinarily strong ally" in the war on terrorism but militancy on the Pakistani side of the border would have to be dealt with.

Don't you hate when you plan a surge, but you don't plan for a surge? Bummer, dude.

Vetting the surge

Today's Post had an interesting perspective on Drunky McStagger's surge speech, from some men who know a thing or two about military service.

As President Bush spoke Wednesday night of sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq to fight America's latest war, some men who have fought earlier wars leaned on the bar at American Legion Post 141 off Belvedere Road, watching the television, wondering and remembering.

"Before we send more troops over there, we should know more about why we're sending more troops," said J.B. "Jimbo" Howe, 64, who served with the 101st Airborne Division from 1959 to 1966. "I think we're losing a war because we're fighting a country that's been at war for many, many years. We don't want any wars we're not going to win again."

Howe hesitated. "But he's the commander in chief," he said of Bush, "and I do support my president - even though I didn't vote for him - because I'm an American citizen."

Howe's response was echoed by several other vets who stood silently watching the president's speech. They didn't favor more troops. They doubted his plan would work. But they wanted their support for the president, and especially for the troops already in Iraq, perfectly clear.

It's really rather simple, and I still don't understand why the wingnuts don't get it. It is possible to support the troops without supporting the president and, as these men show us (even though I don't agree), it's even possible to support the president without supporting the "surge."

"I'm not for sending more troops over there," said Ken Powell, 58, a Vietnam vet who is a past state commander of the American Legion. "I'm for bringing them out as soon as we can bring them out safely. When they didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, we should have started reducing our troops."

But Powell, too, was quick to emphasize his respect for the nation's leader. "I'm not downing the president," he said. "He's done what he's done because he thought it was right at the time. But backing the troops now means bringing them home."

See the distinction? I'll be the first to "down" the preznit, and I don't care if he did what "he thought ... was right at the time." That's no excuse. However, I love the phrasing, "backing the troops now means bringing them home."

It's not about "winning" or "losing" -- now it's just about the lives of loyal, patriotic Americans, fighting someone else's war, and dying only for the pride of the madman in the White House.

Surge protector

The way to stop a surge, obviously, is to stop paying for it.

In an interview in her new office at the capitol, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi told reporters ... that a troop surge translates to an escalation of the war in Iraq. She said sending more forces is the exact opposite of what most Americans want and the White House can’t expect the new Congress to approve money for the action.

"They have to know that the election of a Democratic Congress has made a difference in the oversight of in war in Iraq."

Pelosi said she is now willing to cut off money for the whole war, but will demand justification for any new funding. "You can have tremendous sway in saying, what is this money for, how is it a path to a resolution of this conflict," she said.

I give it, oh, a couple of hours before we hear how the Democrats don't support the troops, and the SCLM manages to turn "no funding for sending new troops" into "no funding for troops."

But, just remember, folks, which party actually supports the troops where it counts, with their votes.

I got your surge right here

With all this talk of "surging" in the context of stupidly putting more troops into harm's way in Iraq, I prefer to think of more benign uses of the word "surge," to wit:




Clearly, what we really need to counter Drunky's rants about surging is, well ...

Surge clairvoyance

Blogger Tom Palmer was eerily prescient last May.

My colleagues Tim Lynch and Gene Healy do a remarkable job of bringing to light and criticizing the Bush administration’s grab for unlimited power in their paper, “Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush.”

Maybe this is where Drunky McStagger and his handlers/apologists (like Fred Kagan) got the idea, hmmm?