Don't think Bush is reducing the troops level by 30,000. No one on the Bush team "has ever used that number"

It's a war without end and now we're starting to realize it's a surge without end. The Bushies were already backing away from a 30,000 troop reduction before Bush even gave his speech. A reduction of 30,000 would bring the troop level back to "pre-surge" levels. Bush isn't going there:

“Somebody made a back-of-the-envelope calculation and put a number, 30,000, out there,” a senior administration official told reporters hours before the speech. “As you know, we have tried to make clear to people in this room and outside this room that no one in the administration has ever used that number. And we cautioned against using that number.”

White House officials said the administration does not want to make predictions “beyond what you can do with reliability.” That means that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come back in March “and give a fresh assessment on how we’re doing on the ground, what they can foresee, because we’re six months further down the road at that point, and what the situation will bear.

“So we expect, at that point in March, to hear about additional forces coming home,” the official said.

Wait another six months. It's an endless surge in an endless war. The only thing that is going to end for sure is the second term of Bush's seemingly endless presidency. Read More......

Reid and Pelosi weigh in on Bush's speech

Got an email with Harry Reid's statement:

"Tonight President Bush announced his plan to keep at least 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, demonstrating that he is trying to run out the clock on his failed strategy and leave the hard decisions to the next president.

"For months the American people, a bipartisan majority of Congress and countless military experts have called for a new way forward in Iraq, but the President has offered only a commitment to endless war that will continue to take American lives, deplete our treasury, and divert our focus from fighting an effective war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operatives.

"After almost five years, tonight was just more of the same. It's not progress nor is it the strategy for success our troops deserve. And as long as President Bush keeps them in harm's way without clear purpose or achievable goals, Democrats will keep fighting to responsibly end this war."

The Speaker posted her statement at The Gavel:

Tonight, President Bush outlined a status quo strategy that leaves at least 130,000 American soldiers in harm’s way as part of a 10-year occupation of Iraq.

The American people reject the President’s call for an ‘enduring relationship’ with Iraq that is based on leaving our troops in the middle of a deadly civil war for at least 10 years. The President failed to answer how maintaining 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would strengthen our military, make us safer, or how he would pay for its additional $700 billion cost.

In the fifth year of war, after more than 3,700 brave Americans have lost their lives, it is unconscionable to ask additional sacrifices of our military while Iraqi politicians refuse to make the political progress necessary to end sectarian violence. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment and the President’s plan for a 10-year war in Iraq.

John McCain was on Larry King Live....he's gung ho on the "Iraq is a success" bandwagon. Wow. he's scarily deranged. Keep in mind that McCain is leading the pro-Bush, stay the course GOP contingent on Capitol Hill. Read More......

Tomorrow, Bush admin. will report progress on only one of the 18 benchmarks since last report

If you're watching Bush speak tonight, one thing you won't hear from him tonight is the revelation about the lack of progress on benchmarks:

A new White House report on Iraq will show improved progress on just one of 18 political and security goals: efforts to allow some former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to rejoin the political process, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

The latest conclusions, being released Friday, largely track a comparable poor assessment in July. The earlier report said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory gains toward eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory marks on eight and mixed results on two.

In the new report, the Iraqi government showed movement on only one of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing legislation on so-called "de-Baathification, which put the goal in the satisfactory category, said the official, who spoke Thursday night on condition of anonymity because the report had not been made public.

Tonight, Bush will talk about progress and success. Tomorrow, we'll learn from his administration that he's lying.

Bumped this up after the speech. This is the untold story, of course -- untold by Bush. Read More......

Open Thread

Okay. It's show time. Bush is giving the BIG SPEECH. Remember, you can really, really trust him this time. Seriously.

Provide the commentary.

Here's a link to the text.

He really likes saying "free Iraq." But saying it, doesn't make it so.

This guy is delusional: "Free Iraq" "Al Qaeda" "Terrorists" "Al Qaeda" "Extremists" "Al Qaeda"

Oh, and we're seeing success. Bush has given this same speech over and over. A few tweaks tonight, but we've heard most of it before. Read More......

Perino flunks the "Original Surge Strategy" pop quiz

Almost funny, but actually very disturbing. Wolf Blitzer just asked Dana Perino the status of the five point plan Bush laid out for the "surge" in January. Perino resisted answering. Instead, she complained that Blitzer wanted to look at in "black and white terms" and that he came up "with a pop quiz." As Wolf noted, it's not a pop quiz, it's what Bush himself outlined:
Read More......

Bush: This time, no kidding, I've really got a plan for success in Iraq. Seriously. I mean it this time.

September 2007:

President Bush will use his Oval Office address Thursday to offer what an aide calls a “plan for success in Iraq” that dovetails with the numerical drawdown advised by Army Gen. David Petraeus, aides said.

As opposed to November 2005: Read More......

Senator Jack Reed gives the response to Bush's "stay the course" BIG SPEECH

The Bush administration is already leaking parts of the BIG SPEECH from tonight. The Politico has excerpts. Guess what? The "surge" is a success. Bush basically parrots Petraeus who was speaking for Bush anyway. And, guess what else? Bush is staying the course, no matter how he tries to couch it.

Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island is giving the Democratic response. Reed serves on the Armed Services Committee and actually served in the military. Here are excerpts from Reed's response after Bush tells us he's still staying the course in Iraq:

“…Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future.

But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.

The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change.

Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.

Tonight, the President provided neither…”

“…So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment.

Do we continue to heed the President's call that all Iraq needs is more time, more of our money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops -- exactly the same number as nine months ago?

Or do we follow what is in our nation's best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?

Democrats believe it is time to change course.

We think it's wrong that the President tells us there's not enough money for our veterans because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops in Iraq…”

“…An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.

We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq…”

Read More......

135,000 troops is not less, just more of the same

Before Bush gives yet another BIG SPEECH about the Iraq disaster, the National Security Network put together a pre-buttal to set the record straight. If there are the same amount of troops in Iraq as before the so-called surge, that is NOT less, it's more of the same. George Bush is back to stay the course:
Read More......

Republican leader Boehner: Loss of life in Iraq is a "small price" to beat Al Qaeda in Iraq, which wasn't in Iraq til after we invaded

Shocking. That's the only word to describe the words of Minority Leader John Boehner on CNN today. In response to a question from Wolf Blitzer about the loss of American lives in Iraq, Boehner, who is on a "surprise visit" to Iraq said the loss of life there is a "small price." Disingenuously, Boehner also invokes Al Qaeda Iraq which did not exist prior to the invasion. This guy really is a clueless craven, yet well-tanned, bastard:

No sacrifice from Boehner. None from Bush. None from Cheney. None from Rice. None from Rumsfeld. None from Rove. But, a lot of those kids whose future Boehner is worrying about have sacrificed mothers and fathers. Read More......

The purity balls

On Friday there will be a formal display of the full flowering of fundie creepiness in Daddy Dobson's territory (Colorado Springs) - a father/daughter purity ball -- complete with a dinner dance, ballet performance, live chamber music, a procession of the young women who will lay white roses at the foot of a huge wooden cross they and their fathers will dance in the ballroom -- and daddy with participate in a covenant signing ceremony pledging to protect her virginity.

In a "counter-cultural" event, fathers and daughters from across the nation are gathering tomorrow for the annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball in Colorado Springs.

Created in 1998 by Colorado Springs parents Randy and Lisa Wilson, the event has birthed a "purity ball" movement across the nation that has attracted international media attention. Journalists from Britain, Canada, Italy, Finland and Norway will cover Friday's gathering at the Broadmoor Hotel.

"This event is about restoring fatherhood one of the most critical issues facing our culture today," said Randy Wilson. "Research shows that the most important man in a daughter's life is her father."

The fathers will stand before their daughters and recite a pledge together:

"I, (daughter's name)'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the areas of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and my family as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come."

There's not much left to say after this, is there? An obvious matter to point out -- is that we don't see any ceremony of this kind between mother and son, since I guess junior is either supposed to be chaste by default -- certainly he's not spilling any seed, right?

Unfortunately for dear old high priest dad, purity pledges aren't exactly keeping little Janie from carnal exploration. In March 2006, Byron Weathersbee, a chaplain at Baylor University in Waco, Texas (a school affiliated with the conservative Southern Baptist Convention), conducted a study on the effectiveness of abstinence ed and virginity pledges in Christians.

* 100 percent professed faith in Christ
* 99 percent attended church
* 84 percent grew up in church
* 87 percent grew up in a two-parent home
* 62 percent of males had premarital sex
* 65 percent of females had premarital sex
* only 27 percent of fundies surveyed managed to stay completely chaste, not engaging in intercourse or Clintonian "non-sex" acts.

The WaPo reported that those virginity pledges touted by head-in-the-sand organizations like True Love Waits and the Silver Ring Thing are doing nothing to stop STDs either Among the 20 percent of kids that took a virginity pledge, 61 percent of the consistent pledgers and 79 percent of the inconsistent pledgers reported having intercourse before marrying or prior to 2002 interviews. Almost 7 percent of the students who did not make a pledge were diagnosed with an STD, compared with 6.4 percent of the "inconsistent pledgers" and 4.6 percent of the "consistent pledgers."

And look at the Lone Star State, bastion of abstinence-only education. It ranked among the 10 worst states in the nation on almost all factors related to teen pregnancy including:
· Teen birth rate 47th
· Percent change in teen birth rate 44th
· Birth rate for younger teens 48th
· Percent teen births that are repeat births 44th
· Teen births as a percent of all births 40th
· Percent of births to teens receiving late or no prenatal care 44th.

Hope they all have a great time at the fantasy purity ball.

Holly points to one that was held in Ohio. Read More......

Big Auto loses emissions case in federal court

The foot-dragging and excuses just aren't working as well as they did in the past when they actually employed people.

A federal judge in Vermont yesterday rejected an attempt by automakers to block individual states from adopting their own standards for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Judge William Sessions III of U.S. District Court in Burlington ruled that state action to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles -- standards that originated in California in 2002 and have since been adopted by Vermont and at least 10 other states -- was not preempted by federal rules on vehicle fuel economy.

Big Auto should be spending more time and money figuring out how to change with the market instead of sending teams of lawyers to block environmental regulations. Read More......

American people want Democratic Congress to lead, not Bush

New poll from CNN shows the American people think the Democrats in Congress would move the country in the right direction. They sure don't feel that way about Bush. So, lead us in the right direction by leading us out of Iraq. (and if the GOPers on the Hill were paying attention, they'd follow the lead of the Democrats, not Bush)


Read More......

Thompson says he's no churchgoer, won't tout religion on stump

That's the fundie-deflating headline at Bloomberg on Fred Thompson's statements at his first campaign stop in South Carolina. All those bible beating fans of the former senator and Law and Order actor who were projecting their fantasies as a 2008 savior onto him just got drop-kicked out of the box:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump.

..."I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now,'' he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. "I don't attend regularly when I'm up there.''

...Thompson's comment about not speaking out about his personal religious beliefs prompted a question from the crowd on whether he would commit to talking about God nationwide, not just in a southern state such as South Carolina, where many people identify themselves as evangelical Christians.

"I know that I'm right with God and the people I love,'' he said in Greenville. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things.''

And how desperate are these fundies to find a winner in the clown car? Look at the pass this person gives Fred:

"As long as he was acclimated in some kind of church, involved in the church, that's very important,'' said Jamie Darnell, 27, of Greenville.

Conservative icon Paul Weyrich isn't sure Thompson will convince The Base either. From Clown Hall:

It is not entirely clear what Thompson believes. When he was Senator he seemed to support an open-borders approach to immigration. In recent speeches Thompson has not supported President George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was soundly defeated.

There is the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Thompson initially stated that, although he is a federalist, he reluctantly supported the Amendment because it was too important to do otherwise. Now his staff has put out a clarification suggesting that Thompson does not support the Amendment. That greatly has upset social conservatives, many of whom believe that support for the Amendment a deal breaker. Thus far, Thompson has declined to meet with important social conservatives to clarify the matter. [With that Values Voter GOP debate coming up on the 17th -- headed up by WingNutDaily's Joseph Farah, with help from Don Wildmon, Phyllis Schlafly and Weyrich -- Fred's going to have to come up with some kind of answers for the wingers. ]

...Survey researchers have been amazed at the support Giuliani continues to receive from conservatives, despite his pro-abortion position, favoritism for special rights for homosexuals and his three marriages. These researchers are told that they favor Giuliani "because he has run something."

These cons are looking so pitiful, but as we all know, the Dems are great at blowing what looks like a shoe-in.

Hat tip, Holly. Read More......

Petraeus: A reduction of 30,000 troops from Iraq doesn't mean an actual reduction of 30,000 troops

Didn't take long for Petraeus to start playing a numbers gain with the troop reduction in Iraq. Just because he said 30,000, doesn't actually mean the number will be 30,000. So what plan is Bush actually accepting tonight? All week we've been subjected to another Bush campaign of spin and deception. Bringing the troop level back to pre-escalation levels isn't really a reduction of forces anyway, but now it's not clear that's even happening.

On NPR's Morning Edition today, Petraeus explained -- or tried to explain -- the numbers:

I want to ask about the reduction in troops that you've talked about. I want to first make sure that I understand the numbers that you're talking about. It's been said that what you've described is a reduction in 30,000 troops. Is that, in fact, what you –

[Petraeus] What I've described is a reduction of five brigade combat teams, Army brigade combat teams, the Marine Expeditionary Unit, which actually is coming out this month without replacement, and two Marine battalions. Now, we want to take out other –

That's a little less than –

[Petraeus] Well, we have to do the math, candidly. We've got – I have not yet said how many thousands of troops.

So when people have said 30,000, they're not quite accurate. It might be 30,000 — it might be quite a bit less.

[Petraeus] Well, we've got to determine what it can be. The mission so far, in a sense, was to figure out how to bring these down while sustaining the gains that our troopers and Iraqi troopers have achieved, and also, then, to figure out the larger picture of where else can you reduce forces — which is something we want to do anyway.

They have to do the math, all right. Bush is going to give a BIG SPEECH to the nation tonight accepting the Petraeus plan when Petraeus hasn't done the math on his plan yet.

No wonder no one believes Bush anymore. Read More......

Nancy, marry me?

NYT:

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

Read More......

Controversial Bush spying program not connected to German arrests

Overstatement or just another lie?

The temporary measure, signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, gave the U.S. intelligence community broad new powers to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications overseas without seeking warrants from the surveillance court. The law expires in six months and is expected to be the subject of intense debate in the months ahead. On Monday, McConnell—questioned by Sen. Joe Lieberman—claimed the law, intended to remedy what the White House said was an intelligence gap, had helped to “facilitate” the arrest of three suspects believed to be planning massive car bombings against American targets in Germany. Other U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell's testimony and urged his office to correct it. Four intelligence-community officials, who asked for anonymity discussing sensitive material, said the new law, dubbed the "Protect America Act,” played little if any role in the unraveling of the German plot. The U.S. military initially provided information that helped the Germans uncover the plot. But that exchange of information took place months before the new “Protect America” law was passed.

Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

BIG SPEECH from Bush tonight. Another BIG SPEECH to explain his strategy for Iraq. Besides Republicans on Capitol Hill and his hard core base, who believes him anymore?

And, Petraeus for President? That's too funny. The Republicans have created a monster. And, while the GOPer went nuts over MoveOn's fact-based ad this week, if Petraeus jumps into politics, the GOPers will be using the facts in that ad themselves against Petraeus.

Happy Rosh Hashanah and the start of the year 5768. Read More......

BREAKING: Petraeus considering running for president. For real.

From the party who still loves Oliver North, this should come as no surprise. Though this pretty much puts to rest any argument about whether Petraeus is "political" or not. You think? Besides talking about his own visions of glory in American politics, read the entire article which highlights - lowlights, actually - the miserably failed missions of Petraeus during his time in Iraq. (Note: The Independent is a perfectly respectable British newspaper and not a trashy tabloid.)

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said....

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

Is this the kind of person we want to rely on for something as critical as whether or not to stay in Iraq? Let's hear more about the success of his Iraqi Army training programs, and about what happened to the US taxpayer funded military equipment, before we listen to Petraeus' reasons for why we need to stay in Iraq. When someone has been part of the problem, why should we suddenly expect them to be part of the solution?

NOTE FROM JOHN: The reason we're still in Iraq, the reason we can't withdraw (they tell us), is because the Iraq security forces aren't yet ready to stand up so we can stand down. Well, Mr. Petraeus was in charge of training those forces. I think it's time the Democrats held hearings on the status of the Iraq security forces and their training. And, gosh, I guess that means Mr. Petraeus would be a rather large subject of those hearings. Read More......

Good news: Employer-paid healthcare premiums slowed again

And the bad news: it still increased 6.1% whereas wages only increased 3.7%.

Employers continue to shift costs to workers -- the average family now pays nearly $3,200 a year toward premiums, nearly double the amount from six years ago. And some employers have dropped coverage altogether, the survey reported. About 60 percent of employers offered coverage in 2007, a statistically insignificant drop from 61 percent in 2006, but down substantially from 69 percent in 2000.

With so many individuals and families paying more for premiums, not to mention co-pays, this just continues to spiral out of control and until the Democrats have a stronger majority this will continue to stagnate. The GOP can explain it however they like and make fun of the European national health systems, but what we have in America is an after-tax health care tax for many Americans. After families have paid all of their taxes they are forced to pay increasing premiums and co-pays, making it even more expensive and cutting into their tax home pay. Why do Republicans support this after-tax, tax? Read More......