New for who?

Last night President Bush outlined his plan for staying in Iraq. He called bringing in troops and attempting to militarily dominate civil disfunction a new strategy.

Well, then, what was the old strategy?

No new anything here. The real strategy is still to justify the occupation. The buzz phrases remain the same: freedom for the Iraqis, victory in the War on Terror, fighting them there rather than here, the disaster of defeat.

In other words we're to believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the Iraqi people would either be sold into slavery or have to figure out how to split the oil revenue amongst themselves. Terrorists would descend on Omaha by the weekend. The War on Terror would be cancelled due to lack of interest. Halliburton shares would drop disasterously for at least two quarters.

Well, here's some new thinking. Let the Iraqis control their own destiny starting tomorrow. Let the terrorists pick sides in that fight while we watch them cut each other's throats. Let Halliburton fall off the gravy train. Let the War of Terror stop feeding the terror it's supposed to be fighting.

Let the American Empire define itself by humanitarian goals rather than by financial and military domination.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a leader with that kind of vision?

This 'Winning' Thing

Every time I hear Bush or one of his cronies go on about the only way to win in Iraq is not to cut and run, I yearn to hear the simple question from somebody, anybody -- win WHAT?

What are we still fighting to win in Iraq?

After all, we went there to sever Saddam from his fearsome Weapons of Mass Deception. Unless he's hiding a nuke under his cell bunk, that's no longer a problem.

Then the mission somehow evolved beyond the original mandate: spend billions of tax dollars forcing democracy on this ethnically divided country. Nobody I know got to vote on this fool's mission disguised as a noble social experiment by which to bring Pollyanna peace to the entire Middle East. It was decided for us by The Decider. And sold to us by a media that did no homework, or at least failed to turn it in.

Well, we spent the money, and Bush boosters have received a nice return on their investment. Iraq has its own government as promised. Whoop-tee-do. Their predictable ethnic civil war resulted just as everyone who doesn't watch Fox News knew it would, but so what? It's not our civil war, it's theirs. How the hell are we supposed to win another country's civil war?

As for the War on Terror, spin it how you will, that's a separate issue. It began years before Iraq, and no less an authority than Supreme Commander George W. Bush himself assures us that it will continue for decades. If we confuse these two separate wars as some seemed determined to do, we'll be in Iraq until the last drop of oil runs out. ...Ahem....

So exactly what is it that we must win in Iraq? If the mission wasn't accomplished when Saddam was caught, tried and convicted, if it wasn't accomplished when the first elections were held, if it hasn't been accomplished in an occupation longer than it took us to win World War II, exactly when will it be accomplished?

Must we stay there and help build an Iraqi army stronger than Saddam's to deal with the civil uprising? Then how do we assure that some general doesn't pull a Saddam and put us right back where we started? By staying there until, ahem, the last drop of oil runs out?

An unending civil war is now the excuse for an unending occupation. A cynic might suggest that was the plan from the beginning.

Please, somebody, ask the relevant question. What are we fighting to win in Iraq?

If winning means we continue to bleed away young lives until there's none of that lucrative lubricant left, who the hell has won?

Bush Loses

Despite recent efforts to appear honest, Resident George W. (GeorgeIII) Bush failed to win Time Magazine's Person of the Year award. According to unofficial sources, Mr. Bush finished 4,322,742,312th, well ahead of several other candidates. Those other candidates did not include Reba McIntire and Manny the Flasher.

White House sources denied that the Resident appeared on daytime television Monday in retaliation for not winning.

"His appearance before the media had nothing to do with anything," a White House aide admitted to his bartender, a correspondent to Girls Gone Suddenly Naked online. "The closer we get to Christmas," the source avowed, "the more the nog."

A separate anonymous source at a day care center near the White House confirmed that Laura Bush, the Resident's familiar, flew to Crawford, Texas, where she ordered Secret Service agents to confiscate all available alcoholic beverages.

Mr. Bush, in the meantime, reportedly confiscated several trucks transporting Jim Beam in the D.C. area and settled into the Oval Office to celebrate Kwanzaa and plan the coming invasion of Iran.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, 'Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"

Well into his second gallon of nog, the Resident issued his annual half-hearted attempt to win black votes:

I send greetings to those observing Kwanzaa.

African Americans and people around the world reflect on African heritage during Kwanzaa. The seven days of this celebration emphasize the seven principles of Nguzo Saba - unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith. These values contribute to a culture of citizenship and compassion, and Kwanzaa activities help pass on African values and traditions to future generations.

As families and friends gather for Kwanzaa, Americans remember the many contributions African Americans have made to our country's character and celebrate the diversity that makes our Nation strong. May your commitment to family, faith, and community thrive during this holiday season and throughout the coming year.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a happy Kwanzaa.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Iraq on the Record

Iraq on the Record:

"...Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Iraq on the Record is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous..."

Please use this valuable reference wisely and often. LINK

Terrorism as Tool

The reason we can't leave Iraq is that 'the terrorists' would win. But we went into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, not terrorists. Saddam was never allied to al Qaeda -- in fact, as a secular Western-style leader, he was the sworn enemy of bin Laden. And as much as many Americans would like to suggest otherwise, Saddam never committed a single terrorist act against America.

Getting Saddam out of the way opened up Iraq to both outside extremists and the inevitable ethnic battles within its borders.

According to one poll, 80% of Iraqis want the U.S. out, and 45% think attacking Americans is justified.

Anyone who had read about the British adventures in the Middle East in the early twentieth century feared this would happen. We tried to warn those shouting for war. We were shouted down.

America was sold that Iraq had to be invaded because their WMD posed a direct threat, but no WMD were used against us during the invasion and none have been found. The excuse is that the intelligence was wrong. After the invasion, obvious and ridiculous mistakes were made, such as guarding oil fields while allowing the looting of weapons caches, not committing enough troops to provide security, and the abysmal disgrace of Abu Gharib. Literally years after Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished!", there are more American troops in Iraq than at this time last year.

Despite all the failures and mistakes, no one has been fired except those who tried to prevent or blow the whistle on those failures.

That makes no sense whatsoever -- except in the one context that is never mentioned. No one assumes that the Bush Administration realized exactly what would happen after the invasion and planned to use it to their advantage. 'Terrorism' is necessary to carry through Phase Two of the plan -- a permanent military presence in the tactical heart of the Middle East. Such a presence is required for the empire envisioned in The New American Century.

As long as there is 'terrorism', we can't leave. As long as we're there, there will be terrorism and our permanent presence is justified. See how that works?

Most major terror attacks are against Iraqis, not Americans. That achieves the same effect while playing better back home. Besides, not even the neocons want to sacrifice our troops unnecessarily. We'll need them later in Iran and Syria. Those troops that are killed by real insurgents are unfortunate collateral damage, necessary for the cause.

Of course, with resistence to a continuing occupation mounting, that all might change -- a more stark reminder might be necessary.

Terrorism is such a valuable tool. Bin Laden getting captured four years ago would have been very inconvenient for the neocon agenda. Americans would have felt relieved, vengeance satisfied. Selling an Iraq invasion would have been unlikely.

Now, thanks to the proliferation of anti-Americanism caused by neocon policies, including the invasion and occupation, bin Laden's capture would likely scare the neocons more than anyone. His capture would create a martyr-inspired, fanatical upsurge in real terrorism. All the carefully-plucked chickens would come home to roost with razors on their spurs, and that's certainly not part of the plan.

When the first neocon bigwig is killed, we'll know the terrorism is out of control and an actual threat to all of us.

In the meantime, we can't leave Iraq because the neocons would lose.

Think Bigger

I'm getting tired of terrorists doing Bush favors. First they rescued him with 9-11, now they help keep our troops in Iraq by killing Iraqis as well as Americans. This is more than mere coincidence. When is it going to dawn on the media, not to mention the American voting public, that terrorism sustains the Bush agenda?

Why is it unthinkable that a ruthless regime might commit atrocities via black ops to make retreat impossible in the eyes of their supporters?

If we must stay as long as "the terrorists" attack, pray tell me what "the terrorists" have to gain by attacking? Do they really want us to stay?

What Next?

Suppose you want war in the Middle East. Say you're a big Risk fan and understand control of that region is key to building an empire, or you want control of the oil reserves the better to reap huge profits in the remaining decades before the supply runs out. Maybe you sincerely believe the Crusades have merely been on hold for a few centuries. Or perhaps you love democracy so much you think it should be forced on everybody.

Your reason doesn't matter, as long as you can plug all those other reasons into a lust for war. That's the key -- convincing enough of your fellow citizens that war is necessary. After all, war is traditionally a last resort kind of thing, especially when it involves invading another country. Sort of like kicking in somebody's door, you need a reason that trumps legal and moral concerns.

Self-defense is the best reason by far. Everyone understands it. All you have to do is accuse some dude of building bombs with the intent of blowing you up. The beauty of that excuse is that it's hard to disprove. How are you going to find out the truth unless you go over there and take a look? How are you going to take a look unless you kick in his door?

It helps if no one much cares for this guy anyway. Pick a bully who's done his share of door-kicking himself. Wait until some disaster happens you can blame him for, even if you offer no evidence. Guilt by association is a powerful tool.

But remember, this neighbor is only the beginning, the opening gambit that makes the end-game possible. You want his whole damn neighborhood. Look above: none of those reasons for war end with a single country, do they?

So forget about your manufactured excuse for war. So what if bombs weren't found? He intended to build them, and now others of his ilk intend to build them -- in other countries. (And below the surface, you still don't have all the oil, you still haven't saved the world from Islam, you still haven't given everyone the vote.) We must stay the course until the whole world is safe for Democracy, Big Oil and Jesus.

But hey, with no bombs found, with gas prices bloated, with Christian leaders sounding as much like heathens as real heathens, the population is now turning on you. They no longer feel threatened. Reality is settling in. They want our troops home.

So what do you do now? The first step is always the hardest, and by God and Revelations you pulled that off. Now you have your base set to expand through the neighborhood. You can't just pull out now, can you?

So whatcha gonna do?

Well, you could make things so bad at home that this empire thing goes on the back burner, out of the public eye. You could provide a few martyrs to the cause from your lower ranks to help take the heat off. You can abstract and excuse and fumble and confuse, but above all you distract.

And if that doesn't work, well, you can always ask yourself, what would Hitler do?