Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yes, but you being YOU, I had to argue.

Or YOU being you, you had to argue.

Let us be amused, and titter. <more or less throwing a dart at the smiley board>

[tw]

Another example of how much George Jr (and Republican extremists who also use Hitler's propaganda techniques) so hates free markets and humanity; and so love K-street corruption and Urbane Guerrilla dictatorships. An exaggeration? Not for a minute. Cheney has always insisted that the president does not have enough power. From the NY Times of 29 Jan 2007:

Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. ...
This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.

[Ibby]

read some rousseu, or voltaire, or locke. The social contract is the binding written OR nonwritten contract between the people and their government or the people and eachother; in the case of my paper, the constitution is the social contract of the US, and Bush violated it (repeatedly) by ignoring and violating the clear and binding text of both the constitution and the bill of rights.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

read some rousseu, or voltaire, or locke. The social contract is the binding written OR nonwritten contract between the people and their government or the people and eachother; in the case of my paper, the constitution is the social contract of the US,

That is the part your paper must establish up front. I see little in common with the philosophies of rousseu, voltaire, etc and something written in stone - a Constitution. But then your definition of a social contract implies something vague (written or unwritten). As a contract, the two parties must be clearly defined - another definition that your paper must define up front.

Social contract is an expression to summarize ideas. But the noun is too vague; should be defined whenever or where ever it is used.

[Ibby]

The assignment is to write about the social contract. The point is not to define the social contract; the point is to describe a current events situation in terms of the social contract.

[BigV]

This administration has decreed that every unit will have it's own politikal officer, to monitor the unit's loyalty to the Exekutive. God save us.

[Hippikos]

Sounds like the Politruks in Stalin's days....

[tw]

Who are loyal supporters of George Jr? A bi-partisan senate resolution will condemn this president's denial of reality on "Mission Accomplished". Mental midget's supporters would block that vote. So who so hate America as to do that? From the NY Times of 30 Jan 2007:

Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote
The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans. ...

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

Susan Collins of Maine is one of the Republicans who takes centrist positions – who repeatedly demonstrates basic intelligence rather than loyalty to party liars. Why would McCain support liars?

We have the solution created by people without a political agenda. People who can think logically and who work for America rather than for wacko political extremists: the Iraq Study Group. This report was widely critical of Maliki using logic rather than a promise from god.

At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.

IOW George Jr (and Cheney) lied again. ISG solution means defeat of "Mission Accomplished" might occur on George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is more important. Prolong the war. Lie to the nation. We are but fodder for his legacy.

"Mission Accomplished" will be completely decided by end of 2007. Also obvious is a major - a most important - point from the ISG. The only way that Iraqis can obtain peace is training. What do we know? Iraqis get almost no training despite administration (and Rush Limbaugh) lies. Where armor was required, we gave them pickup trucks. Iraqis were not even provided Chevy Suburbans. So where is all that money going? Most all weapons and equipment as provided has disappeared. Just like in Vietnam, major provider of Vietcong weapons was the United States. That was how incompetent Westmoreland was and how incompetent George Jr’s administration is today.

We have less than one year to train them and get out. After 2007, it will be even worse. Any longer and the conflict may expand into neighboring nations. If that is not obvious, well, did you hear why Turkey wants to (and may be encouraged by George Jr) to invade northern Iraq – especially Kirkuk.

We spent tens of $billions and no one knows where all that money went. Even the senate finally sees reality. But McCain and Graham demonstrate Urbane Guerrilla denial. They would even block a non-binding vote to protect a shitbag president. Maybe god talks to others besides George Jr?

Originally Posted by tw

Who are loyal supporters of George Jr? A bi-partisan senate resolution will condemn this president's denial of reality on "Mission Accomplished". Mental midget's supporters would block that vote. So who so hate America as to do that? From the NY Times of 30 Jan 2007: Susan Collins of Maine is one of the Republicans who takes centrist positions – who repeatedly demonstrates basic intelligence rather than loyalty to party liars. Why would McCain support liars?

We have the solution created by people without a political agenda. People who can think logically and who work for America rather than for wacko political extremists: the Iraq Study Group. This report was widely critical of Maliki using logic rather than a promise from god. IOW George Jr (and Cheney) lied again. ISG solution means defeat of "Mission Accomplished" might occur on George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is more important. Prolong the war. Lie to the nation. We are but fodder for his legacy.

"Mission Accomplished" will be completely decided by end of 2007. Also obvious is a major - a most important - point from the ISG. The only way that Iraqis can obtain peace is training. What do we know? Iraqis get almost no training despite administration (and Rush Limbaugh) lies. Where armor was required, we gave them pickup trucks. Iraqis were not even provided Chevy Suburbans. So where is all that money going? Most all weapons and equipment as provided has disappeared. Just like in Vietnam, major provider of Vietcong weapons was the United States. That was how incompetent Westmoreland was and how incompetent George Jr’s administration is today.

We have less than one year to train them and get out. After 2007, it will be even worse. Any longer and the conflict may expand into neighboring nations. If that is not obvious, well, did you hear why Turkey wants to (and may be encouraged by George Jr) to invade northern Iraq – especially Kirkuk.

We spent tens of $billions and no one knows where all that money went. Even the senate finally sees reality. But McCain and Graham demonstrate Urbane Guerrilla denial. They would even block a non-binding vote to protect a shitbag president. Maybe god talks to others besides George Jr?

That is not why we are about to get out.
Of course they are talking about getting out of Iraq...
The law is about to pass giving us the oil and natural gas and he just got the extra troops to secure it... duh.
That was the whole reason for us being there.
Now that they got it, fuck the Iraqis.

[tw]

Years ago, George Sr's close friend, Brent Scowcroft, was predicting how bad it would get. But no one really thought the George Jr administration was even more incompetant. If you did not notice last month, every previous Sec of State from Carter's, Reagan's, Bush Sr's, Clinton, etc have criticize Condi Rice in public testimony for not doing her job. She is criticized for doing same failures as National Security Advisor.

How deep is the denial? Another example of how much worse Iraq is compared to rosy pictures so often in the news. Remember reality - Americans are attacked as much as 3000 times every day - because the Iraqis love being liberated. From ABC News of 3 Feb 2007:

Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report
A new National Intelligence Estimate paints a grim view of the security situation in Iraq.
Highlights of the report include:
. Civil War
"Civil war" accurately describes key aspects of the conflict, but the report indicates that there is clearly more than just a civil war at hand.

The report says: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."

. A Deteriorating Situation
The situation in Iraq could grow much worse. Events like the complete defection of Sunnis from the government or the assassination of key political and religious leaders could "shift Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences" that could spill beyond Iraq's borders.

As Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group stated bluntly during Congressional testimony, Maliki is useless and needs to be pressured. But how can this be? On his last trip to Iraq, George Jr said he looked into Maliki's eyes and therefore (somehow) knew.

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.

Lee Hamilton saw something completely different - by listening to what Maliki said.

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 11 Feb 2007:

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Those with feet in reality knew how bad Iraq is just by reading the Iraq Study Group report and 79 tasks necessary to get out. That report that said "Way Forward" will not work? George Jr pretends it does not exist. He can because, well, read George Jr, Cheney, et al are as divorced from reality as Ronald Cherrycoke.

How divorced from reality are our leaders? Just like in Vietnam, ever major intelligence service said the bombing would not work. So we continued a lost war anyway - since the American soldier is something to be sacrificed. Only 22 Senators had to the balls to vote as American patriots against "Mission Accomplished". Even Hilary Clinton will not fully admit her major leadership fubar. Recently the Republicans (and Henry Reid) voted to protect this mental midget's crusade.

From The Economist of 10 Feb 2007 - and this should concern everyone:

"We are not planning for a war with Iran." So said Robert Gates, America's new defence secretary, on February 2nd. You cannot be much clearer than that. With a weak and isolated president, and an army bogged down in the misery of Iraq, the American Congress and people are hardly in fighting mood. Nonetheless, and despite Mr Gate's calming words, Iran and American are heading for a collision. Although the risk is hard to quantify, there exists a real possibility that George Bush will order a military strike on Iran some time before he leave the White House two years from now.

This is not a source to quibble with. The USS Eisenhower task force was surged to the Gulf recently. Now the USS Stennis is joining 'Ike' to conduct operations close to the Iranian coast.

Does that sound like a president listening to the people? Sounds just like Melvin Laird and Richard Nixon when they also claimed we had no plans to invade Cambodia. What resulted from that invasion? The Khmer Rouge and the killing fields.

Again: lessons from history. When a nation was obviously discontented with Vietnam (especially after Tet exposed the lies), then what did Nixon do? Nixon invaded Cambodia. We were only discontented. Deja vue. We are only discontented with "Mission Accomplished". So far, lessons of Vietnam strongly repeat in "Mission Accomplished". Why would a Cambodian invasion not reoccur as the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran? After all, George Jr announced the countries he intends to fix - the axis of evil. Iran is next. You are only discontented.

How often would you ask a stranger "When do we go after bin Laden?" How often do you ask such embarrassing questions? Why not? By not doing so, we are tacitly encouraging the mental midget to expand on his legacy. He (actually Cheney) truly believe they are the good guys. Why would anyone dispute this? Even in the Cellar, the discontent is mild. Deja vue Vietnam - or why Nixon thought nothing of invading Cambodia.

"When do we go after bin Laden?"

The rhetoric has started to hype our 'big dics' into supporting more war. This Cover Story scary picture is based in current facts AND from lessons of Vietnam:

[tw]

An intelligent leader would have recognized long ago that without 500,000 troops in Iraq and with no plans for the peace, then "Mission Accomplished" was lost long ago. Even the Iraq Study Group laid out the only possible way to reduce the scope of that loss. Instead, and because people such as Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke lie, then the mental midget president still thinks god must be telling him what to do.

Iraq is an American defeat. That was becoming obvious to anyone (but the most ignorant) by reading posts even here in the Cellar. Also noted in those posts: if we don't do something about Afghanistan, then even that war is lost. In fact, we may be down to our last year to do anything productive in Afghanistan. Logic says Afghanistan should have been lost years ago.

Cellar dwellers were reading that here more than a year ago when posted was that about one-half of Afghanistan was had been retaken by the Taliban. Yes, NATO is in so much trouble that, last year, the British commander only got from Tony Blair one-tenth the number of troops he requested.

Well Afghanistan is so much worse than reported in the press that the president demands NATO countries put more troops into Afghanistan. Wait? What nation spent one half trillion dollars and did not ... well this question is asked repeatedly only by those who have posting nothing but respect for reality: When do we go after bin Laden?

Why does the scumbag president chastise NATO when the mental midget does everything to empower the Taliban? Who is one of the Taliban's greatest enemies? Iran. Who would be more willing than anyone else in the world to attack and destroy the Taliban? Who did the most after September 2001 to help America destroy the Taliban? Iran. Who does the mental midget condemn without even knowing where the country was? Answer obvious.

And so we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban only because the American president is that dumb. So the dumb president chastises NATO for not doing enough to attack the Taliban? Why did the scumbag president (also called Cheney) attack Saddam? And when do we go after bin Laden?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Sounds like the Politruks in Stalin's days....

Funny sidebar. In the game Call of Duty, one of the missions is the Soviet retaking of Stalingrad (Leningrad?Moscow?). You start out without any weapons, and each squad has to take orders from political officers. At one point you or one of the other characters have to kill one of the political officers in order to get into position to move forward.

Normally I don't like to deliberately kill characters on my own side in games, but in this case I didn't have any problem.

[Aliantha]

Most educational institutions do not allow you to submit the same work twice for the purposes of marking, even if it's for different subjects. This may be what some might refer to as plagiarising yourself.

[Hippikos]

Ahmadinejad, being a devote follower of the Hidden Imam Mahdi, would love a US attack and prays for a "mahdaviat" every day. The more chaos the better, it'll only speed up the return of Jezus and the 15th Iman.

The only missing link, in Ahmadinejad's opinion, delaying the Mahdi’s arrival is that the world is still far too peaceful; the degrees of clash and disasters setting the chain of celestial events of "mahdaviat" have to gather speed. The recent mess in Lebanon by his proxies was a component of that uncompromising ideological fixation.

The powers to be in Iran, like Kathami, don't like this scenario and is in the, time consuming, process of deleting Ahmadinejad's power.

As usual, the present US government neither has any idea of the real power politics in Iran or has the patience to wait for that. Rummy the Great fortunately has been dismissed, so that will have a moderate influence on the decision makers, but, all or not pressured by Israel to fare another war by proxy, a stupid attack is still possible and Ahmadinejad gets his way and Kathami will be eliminated.