Wednesday, September 27, 2006


It’s old news – it’s no news – that the neoconservative hatemongers are in full rabid-monkey attack mode, attempting assault on anything Democrat – and the truth – with such garbage as ABC’s right-wing 9-11 mockudrama and FoxNews weekend hit piece aimed at former President Clinton.

The right-wing trail on “The Path to 9-11,” which leads to a conservative evangelical group and is lousy with the footprints of radical neoconservative David Horowitz, is chronicled by Eat the Press:

“Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception”

The bias of FoxNews needs no tracking… At Fox, all roads turn right…

But there is some new evidence out this morning demonstrating that the public isn’t buying it. From the well-respected pollsters at Gallup:

“Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden”

Noting “Views are predictably partisan; independents mostly blame Bush” the article goes on to state:

“The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.

According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.”

There’s a lot more detail, of course, but the synopsis covers it well.

Damn stupid neocons… Everything they have done in the last 5 years has backfired into a shambles. Now their hit squads pick a fight with the most popular politician on Earth…

What are these fools, a 5th column?

You know, WJC was a less than active campaigner for the Democrats in 2004. He could have done a lot more. Could he have turned the election?

He can certainly turn this issue, which these neocon Neanderthals have tried to shove down his throat in a very personal way. And on this issue the entire Republican chimera of being better on security issues rests…

And it is chimeric – the evidence mounts. Everything GWB has done in the war on terror has proven to be a failure.

He went into Afghanistan – pretty much following Clinton’s plan, the one our incompetent Secretary of State denies existed – missed Bin Laden and replaced a bad government with a worse anarchy… The only winners there are the world’s heroin users – and traffickers…

He went into Iraq naively believing he would be met by rose-strewing citizens singing ‘God Bless America”… He got a quagmire from which we cannot extricate ourselves and a civil war.

We can’t get out. The Iraqis – whose opinions hardly matter on this issue – are divided. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has been lobbying recently for a permanent US presence in Iraq, suggesting it is necessary to protect Iraq’s sovereignty:

“US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq: Talabani”

Yet poll after poll of ordinary Iraqis suggests they the people want us the hell out, and yesterday…

We can’t get out… Can we stay? Very possibly not. As Fred Kaplan over at Slate notes, GWB’s policies have almost destroyed our army:

“How Bush Wrecked the Army”

Civilian interference by the White House’s chickenhawks has wrecked the battle... Meanwhile, failure to cope with the consequences of the failed battle plan has wrecked the army itself:

“Nearly 1,500 Humvees, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and other vehicles were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The same was true of 500 M1 tanks at the Anniston depot in Alabama. None of the Army's five largest depots was operating at more than 50 percent capacity—all because of a shortage of money.”

A shortage of money… When the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House… Is incompetence an impeachable offense? It should be…

Which brings us to the real rock-hard spot quandary: The situation clearly calls for more troops, but there are none to send… Again from Slate:

“Won't Deploy? Can't Deploy.
There are no more troops to send to Iraq.”

Noting neocon mad-dog William Kristol’s call for more troops

Slate’s Daniel Benjamin and Michèle A. Flournoy explain why it can’t be done… And less the source be suspect, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times agrees:

“Army considers more combat units for Iraq”

From the article:

“The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point.
Non-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low readiness ratings due mostly to a lack of usable weapons and equipment. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvee vehicles and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them… Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, this summer asked Congress for nearly $50 billion over three years to replace broken equipment in a process known as "resetting" the force.
"We have inadequate Army and Marine Corps combat power to sustain this level of deployment," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam combatant who led the 24th Infantry Division in Desert Storm.
Gen. McCaffrey said the Army needs an immediate infusion of 80,000 new soldiers added to the active force of about 500,000.”

But the Republicans who got us into this mess are too cowardly to vote the resources to get us out. Why? Because it implies failure. And the neocons would rather see the army wrecked and the troops’ safety compromised than admit a failing.

We can’t go… We can’t stay… And either way, we’re breeding more terrorists. That’s the conclusion of the latest NIE, currently under scrutiny due to the timely work of an unknown patriot who provided the New York Times with at least a part copy. So desperate has GWB been to fend off the scathing conclusions of this document that he today ordered the release of about 10% of the document, which can be read here:

Acerbically querying, “Can Bush Read?” author Timothy Noah points out that the National Intelligence Estimate abstract released says… Exactly what the Times claimed it did…

A shambles… A total shambles… Yet the neocons press the attack…

We are being led by madmen… And mad women; let’s not leave Condi out. Incompetence is equal opportunity in the Bush Administration…

All in all, Bush better hope Osama Bin Laden isn’t dead, and that they can pull him – or a reasonable facsimile – out of Karl Rove’s ass, and soon…

I’ll continue to hope he is dead – and the Republican majority in Congress is dead with him. This much is certain: If “we the people” continue to put up with this level of dishonesty and incompetence, then, well, we’ve earned whatever trouble that comes our way.

Hatred for "neocons" is all well and good. But the extent to which it clouds reality in the liberal mind is astonishing.

Bush was stupid to go into Iraq? Gee, then why did virtually everyone support him on it? Clinton sure did at the time. So did Kerry. The difference is they now attack him for it. That's why they are politicians, not leaders.

Bush got us in a quagmire? Wow, I sure don't remember the same sort of talk when Clinton gave his famous "they will be home by Christmas" line over sending troops to Kosovo to bomb the hell out of them. That one sure didnt work out.

I seem to remember Bush at the time we went in saying this was going to be a long war. And what about that damn World War Two quagmire, I mean don't we still have troops over there? What about the Korea quagmire....... hmmm, troops over there as well.

"Now their hit squads pick a fight with the most popular politician on Earth…"

Who? Who in the world are you referring to? Clinton? Would that be the same president who could never get a majority of the vote in either of the two presidential elections? The same guy who looked by any reasonable standard like a maniac in the recent Fox interview? Clinton the most popular politician on earth? Come on.

Oh well, I guess time will tell, but I think if Bush and the war were so wildly unpopular, Lieberman wouldn't be 10 points ahead in CT. You want to talk about back firing, whoooo hoooo, now that one is a big back fire if he wins, and right now, it sure looks like he will.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?