Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board isn’t impressed with the Iraq Study Group’s report, particularly the proposal for direct talks with Syria and Iran. But the board is claiming one silver lining: “In calling for a withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2008 — if security conditions allow — the report rejects any rapid withdrawal or deadline. Likewise, it reinforces the case Mr. Bush has been making about the ugly consequences of failure in Iraq for American interests. This includes the chance of a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look tame. If the report helps to politically isolate John Murtha and the get-out-now left, its authors will have done some good.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
27 Comments
From douglva at PowerlineNewsForum-
“So the wise men met and decided that the price of a Normandy invasion was just too steep. According to leaked War Department memos, planners estimate deaths on D-Day alone could reach 10,000. In a lengthy, bipartisan recommendation the commission recommended America unilaterally meet with representatives of Berlin, Rome and Tokyo to develop a reasonable exit strategy. It would probably involve giving some concessions. England was a diminishing power in the world and could be abandoned. Other Allies were of little use to America’s long range interests.
There was widespread media opinion that President Roosevelt had made a mess of the War and refused—after repeated requests by key members of the press–to admit it publicly. Those in Congress who had voted in favor of the War after Pearl Harbor were changing their minds now that they suspected White House duplicity in the attack and the original rationale for the War.
A number of leading newspapers have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the War is lost and while sympathetic to the plight of millions enslaved people under Axis domination—some being exterminated—that it was just not in America’s best interests to continue to fight and die. After all, apart from several sub sightings off the Atlantic coast and a few rumors of Japanese ships near the pacific coast, no further attacks on the American mainland had happened since Pearl Harbor.
The commission’s findings and recommendations will be discussed throughout Washington in the days ahead.
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/14613/P15/
Then the big bomb was dropped. Iraq should privatize it’s oil and turn it over to many USA companies and BP not exactly Iraq natives who own the damn oil. Privatize Iraq oil and it’s a guarantee the military will be left behind to protect american oil giants at a very high cost to american taxpayers.
Guess IT IS a war for oil control after all.
Not only do we need to cut on mideast dependence we need to cut back on oil dependence period. It’s products poison the air, ground water and run off pollutes our waterways.
We’re already paying about $15.00 per gallon as it is.http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
We must also consider Jim Bakers very tight association with the Carlyle Group an its’ Saudi Investors.http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
There are equivalent sized oil resources in the U.S. and Canada, but the environmental”tree-huggers” want it their way so we are forced to use overseas oil.
Bull JM, there are other sources for energy besides OIL. We need to wean from the oil teats and that is what it is about.
The Wall Street JournalNow that is a great newpaper.They are exactly correct.A lonely voice in the Liberal media forest.Good Job!
A lonely voice, except for Fox News and The Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh and The National Review and The Weekly Standard and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Cal Thomas and George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer and The New York Post and NewsMax and Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Bret Hume and William Krystel and Kathleen Parker and the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation and Flint Hills Center for Public Policy and Tony Snow and Laura Schlesinger and James C. Dobson and Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” and Michael Savage.
On the left you’ve got Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman.
Damn, liberal media . . .
Once again, you try to make it right in your own mind.You have seemed to have forgotten (here we go again)ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, Newsweek, Time etc.
Okay, Hotwood– you’re beyond reasoning with, but for the still sane readers out there, let me ask you this:
As Noam Chomsky observes, does it make sense that a news company OWNED by another giant corporation (ABC = Disney, NBC = General Electric, etc) which only profits by selling ADS to other major corporations would have a “liberal” bias?
Corporate owned media clearly has a vested interest in preserving its profits and power. And that means keeping things pretty much the way they are (conservativism) as opposed to a new agenda (liberalism).
I am not responsible for the 9:03 post that uses my nic. It likely is from fleetwood or KSGolfnut. We should let these trolls know what we think of them.
Its “for the oil” is utter nonsense and always has been.
If we wanted the oil we would simply buy it. Same as we do now.
Its cheaper
Oil is currently 40% cheaper than it was in 1981.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg
I tried a rapid withdrawal once: now she’s my ex.
40% cheaper? By 2006 dollars, but i don’t remember paying over $2.00 a gallon in 1981. You can run the numbers all you want, but we are STILL paying more at the pump than 1981. It IS about the oil and always will be (north korea anybody?), unless we can expand the alternative energy pool greatly.
Keep on trying, mrbill, maybe someday you’ll understand human dynamics.
It wasn’t me, jr. It wasn’t nice to accuse me of trolling. I think I will poke you with a sharp stick. Put your face right next to the screen and I will come through the wires.
That fleettwood–quite the manly man. His list of ‘liberal’ media outlets was current as of about 1988. He may want to update his world view (not that his list was ever accurate), starting with the Mark Halperin memo I referenced last week.
As for the WSJ, well, pathetic. They’re ass-deep into this failed war as well. Who would expect them to spin things any differently?
The invasion of Iraq is a failure that was built on lies. The US should get out now.
America.Out.Of.Iraq.Now.
And, as usual, Steve Gilliard is able to put the ISG report into the larger political context.
Here’s Gilliard on whiny, titty-baby “I am the commander in Chief!” in light of yesterday’s blow-off of the incoming House and Senate Democratic leadership.
**********************************
http://www.stevegilliard.blogspot.com
“He’s not going to be in office by 2008. If he rejects the ISG, the establishment are going to grease the skids for him and Cheney. While people have been parsing the report as if it mattered, or complaining about the members, they don’t get the whole. Which is basically : Boy King, stop and listen.
If he refuses to listen, they will ensure he has to.
They will simply ratchet up the pressure on Bush and friends, leak more, talk about his failed, dying presidency. Toss on oversight hearings and some court cases, and Bush will be in serious trouble.
Now, I know people will argue that Bush won’t care what people thing, but Poppy can see his family drifting into historical irrelevance, even infamy. Cheney will be the first to find out how the old guard can get things done. As an object lesson.
Bush is scaring people who don’t scare easily. Like Jim Baker.”
**********************************
Oh, by the way Repukes, your boy is now down to 30% approval rating in the latest Zogby poll. Dumpster diving in the dustbin of history–the lot of you. The Wall Street Journal included. I regard them as colluding in a war crime. Rupert Murdoch as well.
“ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, Newsweek, Time”
This is the “liberal” media? Interesting. We have ABC owned by Disney that refused to do business with Michael Moore because of his film criticizing Bush. CBS fired Dan Rather for a story critical of Bush. NBC was with ABC and CBS that showed the anti-Kerry film “Stolen Honor” right before the election. CNN, 24 hours of Fox Light news that openly advocated the war. MSNBC that fired Phil Donahue despite getting high ratings because he wouldn’t support the war. The NYT isn’t conservative or liberal but corporate happy by allowing Exxon to run an ad in the editorial section, and they weren’t terribly critical of Bush during the war. The Washington Post supported the illegal occupation of Iraq, supported privatizing social security, supported CAFTA and endorsed Joe Lieberman, not exactly liberal positions. USA Today is neither liberal or conservative, it’s watered down to appeal to the largest public audience. The LA Times created the Iraq baby incubator hoax in order to drum up support for the first Iraq invasion. They also had an article supporting the bombing of Iran. The LA Times is also a big McCain supporter. Newsweek and Time, it’s almost sad to even have to mention how conservative they are. Newsweek will change the cover of their magazine so as not to offend conservatives in America. Time is owned by Time/Warner, ‘nuf said.
Of course these are but a few examples but would corporate owned media go out of their way to present information critical of corporations? Nope. If they did then Michael Moore’s tv shows would have lasted more than one season despite good ratings. The ‘liberal media’ is merely a mantra conservatives keep on crowing about.
JM,
You seem to be talking about high-cost tar sand.
Why do you advocate a strategy that benefits Iran, Saudi, and other OPEC nations?
Tar sand requires high $/barrel prices to be profitable. M-E nations will (are) generate huge profits from their low-cost (a few $’s/barrel to produce) oil.
Also, OPEC wants us (and the rest of the world) to deplete our higher cost oil first — then we’re dependent on OPEC, and they can better control the price.
RM, do you oppose higher energy efficiency? It takes an investment of only about $12 to save each barrel.
$12/barrel, or $60, maybe $100+/barrel to M-E nations?
So the WSJ favors ’stay the (failed) course’; is that a surprise? Then, after a few more years of continued failure what do we do?
A Quest for Integrity
Dear Friends,
I am on a quest for integrity in Washington this week. The Democratic leadership plan to continue the war in Iraq by supporting yet another appropriations bill that is likely to go to the floor early next year granting an estimated $160 BILLION, the largest appropriation so far for the Iraq war. You can read my comments in an interview with Truthdig yesterday.
There is $70 billion already in the pipeline that can be used to bring the troops home.
There is only one way to end the war in Iraq – by cutting off funds. In October this year, $70 billion was appropriated for FY 2007; the $160 billion supplement will take the budget for the war in 2007 to $230 billion. 2006 saw $117 billion spent on the war, 2007 will be almost double. This will expand war, increase the violence, send more troops to the region, and push our nation into even further indebtedness.
Already over 18% of our tax dollars goes to service the interest on our national debt and 28% to the annual military budget (not including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), whilst only 2% goes on housing and 0.3% on job training. (See tax chart.)
Last week I published a series of articles on the web which analyze the responsibilities of congress, the Campbell v Clinton case, of which I was part, which rules that appropriating funds is implied consent for the war (i.e., voting for appropriations = voting in favor of the war), looks at the voting record in the House and Senate, and puts forth a plan for US withdrawal and UN handover. Click here to read the articles.
Yesterday the Iraq Study Group issued their Iraq report, which I read in full last night and spoke about on the floor of the house today.
The report cites how 500,000 barrels of oil are being stolen per day in Iraq. That is $11.3 billion worth per year. This is interesting, since the Ministry of Oil was the first place our troops were sent after the invasion of Iraq and we now have 140,000 troops there.
How can we expect the end of the Iraq war and national reconciliation in Iraq, while we advocate that Iraq’s oil wealth by handled by private oil companies?
It is ironic that this report comes at the exact time the Interior Department’s Inspector General says that oil companies are cheating the US out of billions of dollars, while the Administration looks the other way.
Is it possible that Secretary Baker has a conflict of interest, which should have precluded him from co-chairing a study group whose final report promotes privatization of Iraq oil assets, given his ties to the oil industry? Is it possible that our troops are dying for the profits of private oil companies?
What kind of logic is it that says we need to appropriate $230 billion in a single financial year? The largest appropriation for the war in Iraq? The money is there to bring the troops home now.
A defective logic has invaded Capitol Hill. Democrats won the election because the American people want to end the war in Iraq, yet members feel they can say they oppose the war in Iraq while at the same time support an appropriation of $160 billion. They say the appropriation is to “support the troops,” yet will result in keeping them in Iraq for another two years.
We must work together to transform this destructive thinking.
I need your help.
Please contact your member of congress and the Democratic leadership, urging them to vote NO on the appropriations bill next year. An appropriation of $160 billion is enough to keep us in Iraq for another two years. In Government Oversight Committee hearings, I have personally questioned military officials, who state clearly that this war cannot be won militarily.
Would you buy a used war from this administration?
There is $70 billion already in the pipeline that can be used to bring the troops home and implement a real plan for stability in the region.
Sincerely,
Dennis J Kucinich
Richard,
Were you a Kucinich backer in ‘04? Just curious.
There is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq. Common sense dictatesthat when you fail a military campaign, yu get the hellout of enemy territory. Why does America lack common sense?
Cut-off the money.
WSJ like Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, are just dead enders, in their last throes!
Doesn’t anyone get it? This war is about oil!! It’s always been about oil!!! I am angry as hell that my 2 sons are fighting for oil. Since we have had a republican controlled government we have done nothing to develop alternatives to oil. That would take money out of the corporations that Bush and Cheney are in bed with. I am stunned that the American public allows the Republicans to make it all about gay marriage, abortion, whether we say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, ect. We just march to their drummer while they sell us down the river and they fill their campaign coffers with blood money. You don’t see us going to save the poor people in Darfur. They don’t have any oil.
True enough. I believe Carter said while he was Pres., U.S oil consumption went from 9 Bil. barrels to 6 bil. imported per yr. We now import 12 bil. barrels per yr., and the govt. promotes hummers (except in the oval office), instead of mandator fuel consumption improvements in vehicles.
What else was going to happen when two oilment were installed as President and Vice President? Of course the US is more dependent on foreign oil today than we were during the Carter years.
But the Religious Right shares the blame here also – Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their blessing on this Iraq War. I resent the Religious Right for engaging in a holy war. As a Christian, I resent these two so-called religious leaders even professing God’s name. I truly believe everyone that had a hand in starting this Iraq War will answer to the true God one day.
I suspect Bush will find out it was Satan telling him to go to Iraq, and set the people free, instead of God. Bush just thought he was the Burning Bush of old that God talked through.