Opera Glasses and Popcorn… ;) 20 December 2006Posted by marisacat in Big Box Blogs, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Iraq War, WAR!.
I noticed this at the AFP wire…
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A senior US diplomat implicitly confirmed a report that
AFP called it “implicit confirmation”… and previously I had seen this at Angry Arab…
I have not written on the sudden resignation of Prince Turki Al-Faysal (he wanted “to spend time with his family”, an official statement said–the same excuse that US politicians use when they resign for reasons that have nothing to do with the sudden love of one’s family).
I am waiting to learn more about it. One source today told me that Turki recently met with Olmert, and the news of the meeting rankled some in the (dysfunctional) royal family.
posted by As’ad @ 5:49 PM link
I think I can still put 2 and 2 together…
By the by, as various B-B-Blahhgers deign to play Shut the Various and Sundry Fucking Pie Hole games…
THIS is how it is said (from Hotline’s Blogometer):
IRAQ: Homecomings And Accountability
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D_CA) addressed Daily Kos readers 11/27:
Americans did not give my party a mandate simply to “work with the President,” or to wait for cues from a blue-ribbon committee. …The message is clear – the American public has directed the Democratic Party to be bold, to change course on Iraq, with the main goal of bringing our troops home. … Congress has the power to end this occupation. We must stand up to our responsibility and bring every pressure to bear on this Administration. We must use every lever and pursue any avenue to hold them accountable for their immeasurable failures in Iraq. This isn’t just another priority for the new Congress. According to the voters who have elected us, this is the 110th Congress’ most solemn duty.
… and NOT the drooly nearly Republican bullshit (oh yes Reid revised, big whoop) that Hill-a-ree and Reid have dished out. It’s a pity that all Reid has to do is jerk the BBB chains… those pink rhinestone studded chains…
When you softly, gently, bi partisanly, murmuringly agree to escalation of war (surge!) you are not working toward a short timeline for withdrawal.
You are signing on to devastation, for political gain. Further, it is flat out immoral.
It seems the BBB still buy (and the Dems are still selling) that most of elected DC, lobbyist DC and various hangers on, relatives, and pets ”knew nuthin'” about what was coming down the pike when they voted on the IWR in October, 2002. They voted for the ”threat of war” and now they are facilitating a little surge.
Bull Fucking Shit.
Again from Lynn Woolsey:
”This isn’t just another priority for the new Congress. According to the voters who have elected us, this is the 110th Congress’ most solemn duty.”
UPDATE, 4:42 am Thursday…
Alexander Cockburn notes what Norman Solomon of FAIR has said, the cacophony has been rising for more troops to Iraq:
[F]rom the Republican defeats at the November 7 polls through to the publication of the Iraq Study Group report, there was a window for Washington to commence diplomatic operations to get out with all speed.
That opportunity has almost gone. Now a decisive moment approaches. The Democratic leadership — Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Biden — is recommending that the Democrats in Congress vote to approve the supplemental budget appropriation early next year, probably $160 billion, which will give Bush enough money to keep the war going till he leaves town.
Enough Democrats have always been available to push these appropriations through, sometimes by huge majorities or, in the Senate, unanimous agreement.
Here’s the record of shame:
By 2004, when it was clear a disaster was unfolding and after Iraq’s alleged WMDs had been exposed as frauds invented by US and British intelligence agencies and the press: HR 4613 — Final House Vote July 22, 2004: 410-12. Final Senate Vote July 22, 2004: 96-0.
In 2005, by which time it was clear that the US attack had spawning civil war, plus staggering corruption — HR 1268: Final House Vote May 5, 2005: 368-58. Final Senate Vote May 10, 2005: 100-0. HR 2863: Final House Vote December 19, 2005: 308-106. Final Senate Vote December 21, 2005: 93-0.
By 2006 the American people were turning decisively against the war. Bush’s ratings were among the lowest in presidential history. Up came HR 4939: Final House Vote June 13, 2006: 351-67. Final Senate Vote June 15, 2006: 98-1. HR 5631 — Final House Vote September 26, 2006: 394-22. Final Senate Vote September 29, 2006: 100-0.
Years ago, my father used to tell me that when it came to assessing the likely policy of the British Labor Party, the best approach was to figure out the worst option available, and then proceed under the assumption that this was the course the Party would adopt. Here in the U.S. I’ve always applied this useful journalistic rule to the Democrats, with unfailing success. Never for a moment, after November 7, did I doubt that Reid and the others would do the wrong thing.
As we warned after the election, the role of the Democrats will be to ease through a troop increase. This prediction has turned out to be 100 per cent accurate. [snip]
As I post this the Pakistani ambassador to the US, Mahmud Ali Durrani, is on C-span. It is very hard to take. He bleats for more troops, more money, more gunships… and last, “no chinks in our armour”. Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US should ”stand together”. “You [meaning the US] started a job and you need to finish it”. He says…
I am sick to death of smiling, snide, lecturing puppets. Here or there…
We are killing ourselves from within and being drawn into complicated cons from without…
UPDATE, 6:27 am
[S]o far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don’t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.
But it’s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war agenda which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals – Bush, Olmert and Blair – according to intelligence sources.
Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.
[add in the article referenced at the top of this post, high level Saudis, possibly al Turki, have met with Olmert - Mcat]
All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.
[and for the insane, esp the fucking Xtian insane, the answer is more war - Mcat]
Bush and Blair spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a disastrous occupation. In August 2006, Olmert launched offensives against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of civilians and domestic criticism for his poorly designed war plans.
The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political opponents. Bush’s Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate on Nov. 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war.
Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries. [snip]
This is the close:
In early 2007, the revival of this neoconservative strategy of using the Israeli military to oust the Syrian government and to inflict damage on Iran’s nuclear program may represent a last-ditch – and high-risk – gamble by Bush and the neocons to salvage their historic legacy.
If that is the case, then Bush will approve “the surge” in U.S. forces into Iraq, which likely will be followed by some provocation that can be blamed on Syria or Iran, thus justifying the expanded war.
Betting the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians across the Middle East, Bush will follow the age-old adage of gambling addicts: in for a dime, in for a dollar.
And damn the Democrats to hell if they collaborate.