BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 18, 2007 (AP) — Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, left scores injured and sent a grim message to officials boasting that extremist factions were on the run.
The attacks in mostly Shiite areas twin explosions in an open-air market that claimed 62 lives and a third blast that killed one were a sobering reminder of the challenges confronting any effort to rattle the well-armed and well-hidden insurgents.
[...]
More than 129 people were injured, including many women who were shopping, said police and rescue officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
Meanwhile, Condi has been in Baghdad carrying water for Bush:
"The United States is investing a great deal, most especially the lives of our men and women in uniform, and the American people want to see results and aren't prepared to wait forever to see those results," Rice told reporters.
The more I hear that line, the more arrogant and hypocritical it becomes. Bush and his neocons are responsible for the number of soldiers that have died over there because they had no flipping plan yet they keep scolding the Iraqi government as if it somehow, at this point, it is supposed to wave a magic wand and make everything better.
Bush has now claimed that the buck stops with him and that's exactly where the blame should be placed. He ignored the Iraq Study group report and went ahead with his so-called surge idea despite the enormous amount of opposition but, somehow, this is all now the Iraqis fault - still. al Maliki's hands aren't clean either since he's beholden to his own sectarian interests but the administration should have realized that from the beginning. What did they expect?
Rice is living in the Twilight Zone:
"Some do not think that this was the right war to fight, and others think that we in the administration haven't fought this war quite right," but still support U.S. forces and others in harm's way.
"I keep hearing and reading the American people don't want to fight this war anymore. I don't think that's right. The American people want to know that we can succeed," Rice said.
The American people want out. Period. They have no faith in Bush's leadership anymore and know that he is not the right man for this job. What's not "right" is this constant illusion people like Rice continue to live in.
Meanwhile, the Democrats plan to go ahead with "a flurry" of resolutions.
The flurry vs the surge.
WASHINGTON _ After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they’ll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation “just like in the days of Vietnam.”
The tough talk came a day after the House of Representatives passed its own anti-Iraq resolution and as the GOP used a procedural vote to stop the Senate from taking a position on the 21,500 troop increase.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: “We’re going to move on to other things.”
What "other things'? And what is Schumer smoking that he thinks Bush will budge an inch from his strategy? He'll just call the Dems obstructionist and carry on as usual. In the meantime, Hillary, who still won't apologize for her Iraq war vote, says she wants to see US troops start to pull out of Iraq in 90 days. How she intends to make that happen is anyone's guess. And suddenly bloggers like Matt Stoller, whose only concern was with winning back congress for the Democrats, is ready to throw them all out and start again:
If this Congress won't end the war, it needs to be voted out of office by the public for failing to do its job.
The polling is bad for cutting off funds for the troops. The polling is good for Congressional action to end the war. Therefore, if a member is giving a caveat that Democrats support the troops and won't end funding to the troops, they are prolonging the war.
That's where we are. I wish our members weren't consistently behind the public in their seriousness about ending the war, but that's the deal. And we better stop fawning over our Democratic leaders or they will never get serious about building a progressive America.
Maybe you shouldn't have fawned all over them to begin with. It's a bit too late now to learn that "building a progressive America" isn't about supporting anyone with a D behind their name. That's what you get when you sacrifice your principles and values. Buyer's remorse at this point is more than a bit hollow. What's long overdue is the fealty to American exceptionalism and supremacy at the expense of all others.
The Democrats and their supporters now have their hands tied. Either they endorse a bold move or they live through another two years of Bush's monarchy. The way things are going, it certainly looks like Bush will have free reign to prod on with his insanity on the backs of the hundreds of thousands who have already died and those who continue to suffer. The man should be tried for war crimes. Impeachment is too good for him, but even impeachment is greeted with timidity by many who oppose him because the elecorate might not like it if the Dems actually do their constitutional duty. Maybe they should think about what it's like to live in the nightmare that is Iraq on a daily basis instead of being so damned concerned about politics. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
Update: I suppose when you feel the need to protect the Democrats at all costs, regardless of their ineffectiveness, you just blame whoever you can and hope its sticks like like commenter does at Matthew Yglesias' blog:
If Stoller wants to blame someone for the timidity of the Democrats, perhaps he should consider our incredibly lame and ineffective anti-war "movement," which has proven utterly incapable of translating the majority of America's manifest frustration with this war into anything like effective pressure. They've totally failed to stake out a credible position to the left of the Democratic leadership, which would (a) probably be substantively correct, at least by my lights (b) more importantly, create room for maneuver so that Democrats could push stronger resolutions but still appear moderate.
Posted by: dropping by on February 18, 2007 11:56 AM
Yes, it's the anti-war movement's fault. And if you buy that, I have some swamp land to sell you.
Related: White House delivers surge in lies, hypocrisy
No comments:
Post a Comment