I'm the War President

Todays Laugh,
Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5, and 6.If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.If you are delusional and occasionally hallucinate, please be aware that the thing you are holding on the side of your head is alive and about to bite off your ear.
__________________________________
Todays Quote,
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told Rice the president's plan was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
_______________________________________--

Bron Dorgan (D-ND) One point the President will have to explain is the testimony that was given less than 2 months ago before the Senate by General Abizaid, the top military commander in Iraq. I am talking about the top military commander of American troops in Iraq. Here is what General Abizaid said in November, less than 2 months ago. He said:"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, 'In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does that add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no. The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."This is testimony before a congressional committee of the top U.S. military commander in Iraq saying he has asked all of his top commanders, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq.That is something I believe has to be reconciled. Has that changed? Has something changed in 2 months?At this point, we have America's troops in the middle of a civil war. Yes, most of this is sectarian violence. We see the reports. January 7: 30 dead in Baghdad, bodies hang from lampposts. The Government said Saturday that 72 bodies were recovered around the city, most showing signs of torture. We see these day after day after day. Our heart breaks for the innocent victims of this war.The question for us now is, Should American troops be in the middle of that civil war? Should we send additional troops to that circumstance? If so, for what purpose? And if so, why do we do it less than 2 months after General Abizaid said the commanders do not believe additional troops will be effective
_________________________________________________
President Bush promised on Thursday to veto Democratic-drafted legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.
________________________________________________-
President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Address to the Nation last night outlining his new course on Iraq:
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will dadvanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraqisrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing it.


_____________________________________

President Bush may be a headless horseman. But the biggest problem is what he rode in on.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a good name for it 40 years ago: "The madness of militarism."
We can blame Bush all we want - and he does hold the reins right now - but his main enablers these days are the fastidious public servants in Congress. They keep preparing the hay, freshening the water, oiling the saddle, even while criticizing the inappropriately jocular rider. And when the band plays "Hail to the Jockey," most of the grown-up stable boys and girls can't help saluting.
The people who actually live in Iraq have their own opinions, of course. UPI reported at the end of December that a new poll, conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, found that "about 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the US-led invasion than it is today." Meanwhile, according to a CNN poll last month, 11 percent of Americans support sending more US troops to Iraq.
Buried in a New York Times news article on Tuesday (January 9) was this statement of fact: "By law, Congress can limit the nature of troop deployments, cap the size of military deployments and cut financing for existing or prospective deployments."
Some Democrats in Congress want to hand the president his head and some don't. But, as a practical matter, the distinction is moot. He's in the thrall of what you might call a repetition compulsion disorder that manifests as digging in his heels.
Obviously the president likes the wind in his ears. And he shows no sign of slowing down. Bush can keep riding the madness of militarism at a gallop unless people on Capitol Hill stop nourishing it with appropriations. And they won't do that unless we find effective ways to insist that they cut off funding for the war.
The key problem right now isn't the headless jockey. It's the stable hands who keep feeding the horse he rode in on.
__________________________________________________
In typical fashion, our latest "surgical strike" to take out a pair of terrorists hiding in Somalia seems to have involved killing a few people other than a targets. One, or two or...
U.S. helicopter gunships have launched a second day of attacks in Somalia, targeting suspected leaders of al-Qaida in East Africa.
Dozens of people have reportedly been killed. The Pentagon is not saying yet whether or not the attacks have been a success.
Success? Of course it's a success! People are dead. That's the definition of success.
___________________________________________

Finally, a questioner lays it all on the line: "The war's the big issue," he says, adding, "Some kind of disengagement—it's going to have to happen. It's a big issue for you, for our party, in 24 months. It's not that long a time." McCain replies, "I do believe this issue isn't going to be around in 2008. I think it's going to either tip into civil war … " He breaks off, as if not wanting to rehearse the handful of other unattractive possibilities. "Listen," he says, "I believe in prayer. I pray every night." And that's where he leaves his discussion of the war this morning: at the kneeling rail.On the way to our next stop, McCain tells me, "It's just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can't make the next step."
There you have it. So because St John and Junior and the rest of these macho Republican heroes can't "face" failure, with or without an escalation, more Americans will have to die in the Iraq meatgrinder for their vanity. Jesus H. Christ.