By Ray McGovern
April 18, 2007
The rhetoric over recent days makes it clear that Vice President Dick Cheney is still in charge of Iraq policy. He seems supremely confident that the Democrats can be intimidated into giving the White House the only thing it really wants - enough money to stave off defeat until President George W. Bush and Cheney are safely out of office.
That, of course, is also what lies behind the "temporary surge" in troop strength.
Read on.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Bush/Cheney Dig in to Win
By Robert Parry
April 17, 2007
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are determined to secure another $100 billion blank check for the Iraq War despite a growing consensus among intelligence and military analysts that the war strategy is in chaos and on course to gravely damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Having solidified support among congressional Republicans and still backed by a powerful right-wing news media, Bush and Cheney appear to have concluded that they can force congressional Democrats to back down over legislative language seeking a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
Read on.
April 17, 2007
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are determined to secure another $100 billion blank check for the Iraq War despite a growing consensus among intelligence and military analysts that the war strategy is in chaos and on course to gravely damage U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Having solidified support among congressional Republicans and still backed by a powerful right-wing news media, Bush and Cheney appear to have concluded that they can force congressional Democrats to back down over legislative language seeking a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
Read on.
Impeachment: A Duty, Not an Option
By Carla Binion
April 17, 2007
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deceived Congress and the American people into supporting their unlawful invasion of Iraq. Their abuse of power continues. They should be impeached, not for partisan reasons, but to maintain our constitutional system and to deter future leaders from abusing power.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. discussed Richard Nixon's expansion and abuse of presidential power in "The Imperial Presidency." Schlesinger said the question of impeachment "was more than whether Congress and the people wanted to deal with the particular iniquities of the Nixon administration. It was whether they wished to rein in the runaway Presidency."
Read on.
April 17, 2007
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deceived Congress and the American people into supporting their unlawful invasion of Iraq. Their abuse of power continues. They should be impeached, not for partisan reasons, but to maintain our constitutional system and to deter future leaders from abusing power.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. discussed Richard Nixon's expansion and abuse of presidential power in "The Imperial Presidency." Schlesinger said the question of impeachment "was more than whether Congress and the people wanted to deal with the particular iniquities of the Nixon administration. It was whether they wished to rein in the runaway Presidency."
Read on.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Bush's Double Standard on Terrorism
By Mary MacElveen
April 13, 2007
What would you say if a known terrorist was about to be freed on $350 thousand bail? Would it anger you? Of course it would if this country truly believes in capturing and punishing terrorists.
What would be your reaction if this was the last recorded message made by a pilot of a downed air plane, “We have an explosion aboard, we are descending immediately! ... We have fire on board! We are requesting immediate landing! We have a total emergency!"... just before all on board perished.”?
Read on.
April 13, 2007
What would you say if a known terrorist was about to be freed on $350 thousand bail? Would it anger you? Of course it would if this country truly believes in capturing and punishing terrorists.
What would be your reaction if this was the last recorded message made by a pilot of a downed air plane, “We have an explosion aboard, we are descending immediately! ... We have fire on board! We are requesting immediate landing! We have a total emergency!"... just before all on board perished.”?
Read on.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Iraq & the Logic of Timetables
By Robert Parry
April 12, 2007
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
Well, there’s a logical answer to Bush’s rhetorical question. If a timetable encourages Iraqi insurgents to silence their guns and to stop planting roadside bombs – even temporarily to wait the Americans out – Iraq might get the breathing space it needs to begin healing its sectarian divisions.
Read on.
April 12, 2007
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
Well, there’s a logical answer to Bush’s rhetorical question. If a timetable encourages Iraqi insurgents to silence their guns and to stop planting roadside bombs – even temporarily to wait the Americans out – Iraq might get the breathing space it needs to begin healing its sectarian divisions.
Read on.
Exploding the Clinton-Did-It Defense
By Jerry Sanford
April 12, 2007
It isn't surprising that the right wing resurrected the "Bill Clinton did it too" rationale to bail the Bush administration out of the recent United States attorneys scandal. But as the trail of lies leads deeper into the White House and the Justice Department, that comparison fades to black.
The egregious firing of eight United States attorneys last December was accomplished by using a little-known provision in a 2006 amendment to the Patriot Act that gave President Bush the authority to by-pass the traditional advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
Read on.
April 12, 2007
It isn't surprising that the right wing resurrected the "Bill Clinton did it too" rationale to bail the Bush administration out of the recent United States attorneys scandal. But as the trail of lies leads deeper into the White House and the Justice Department, that comparison fades to black.
The egregious firing of eight United States attorneys last December was accomplished by using a little-known provision in a 2006 amendment to the Patriot Act that gave President Bush the authority to by-pass the traditional advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
Read on.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
'Surge' Architect Rejects 'War Czar' Job
By Robert Parry
April 11, 2007
The widespread doubts within U.S. military and intelligence circles that George W. Bush’s Iraq War “surge” can succeed were underscored when one of the plan’s architects, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, was one of three generals to rebuff a White House offer of a new job dubbed “war czar.”
In December, Keane and neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan promoted the idea of a U.S. military escalation in Iraq as an alternative to the growing consensus in favor of a phased withdrawal of Amercan combat forces.
Read on.
April 11, 2007
The widespread doubts within U.S. military and intelligence circles that George W. Bush’s Iraq War “surge” can succeed were underscored when one of the plan’s architects, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, was one of three generals to rebuff a White House offer of a new job dubbed “war czar.”
In December, Keane and neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan promoted the idea of a U.S. military escalation in Iraq as an alternative to the growing consensus in favor of a phased withdrawal of Amercan combat forces.
Read on.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
U.S.-Made Mess in Somalia
By Ivan Eland
April 10, 2007
The media often report overseas developments, but don’t always explore their underlying causes, which, in many cases, conveniently lets the U.S. government off the hook. The recent internecine violence in Somalia provides a classic example.
The U.S. media have focused to date almost exclusively on the rising Islamist movement in Somalia and U.S. “covert” assistance to the Ethiopian invasion that supported Somalia’s transitional government against the stronger Islamists. The media should be focusing on one of the major causes of the Somali mess: U.S. government meddling.
Read on.
April 10, 2007
The media often report overseas developments, but don’t always explore their underlying causes, which, in many cases, conveniently lets the U.S. government off the hook. The recent internecine violence in Somalia provides a classic example.
The U.S. media have focused to date almost exclusively on the rising Islamist movement in Somalia and U.S. “covert” assistance to the Ethiopian invasion that supported Somalia’s transitional government against the stronger Islamists. The media should be focusing on one of the major causes of the Somali mess: U.S. government meddling.
Read on.
Anniversary Demonstrations Denounce U.S. Occupation
Protests were carried out in Iraq yesterday to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and of course, the fourth anniversary of the U.S. occupation. The demonstrations reflected the strange nature of the Iraq war, a war in which the "enemy" is essentially the people of Iraq, 82 percent of whom reject the presence of coalition forces in their country, according to a 2005 British MoD survey.
The largest of the demonstrations appears to have taken place in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, where hundreds of thousands protested the occupation.
As al-Jazeera reported today,
What yesterday’s mass demonstration, well, demonstrated, is that despite the resources the U.S. has spent in pacifying Najaf, the city is no more under U.S. control than it was three years ago. The mission of destroying Sadr’s militia also appears to have failed miserably. Rather than “absolutely destroy it,” as Col. Pritchard promised three years ago, instead it seems that the U.S.’s heavy-handed tactics have strengthened it.
Just over the weekend, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting against the militia, just outside of Baghdad, where a “surge” of U.S. troops is attempting to impose some level of security on the capital city.
As the BBC reported,
The weekend was one of the costliest in terms of U.S. casualties for quite a while, with ten soldiers reported killed. But the violence may get even worse in the coming weeks. Some press reports noted that the Najaf demonstration and some of fiery rhetoric from al-Sadr may be an indication of a coming offensive against U.S. forces. As the Kansas City Star is reporting today,
The deteriorating situation should not be a surprise to anyone who has even loosely followed the Iraq war for the past four years. Every single one of Bush’s promises of “turning the corner” has turned out to be empty, and every single development that was supposed to bring security to the country – whether elections, Saddam’s capture, Saddam’s execution, or the new surge – appears to have had the opposite effect.
As Bush’s Democratic opponents may blame a “failed strategy” for the mess, the reality may be instead that the situation simply reflects the nature of guerrilla war. In any war of attrition, the advantage is with the fighters who are indigenous to the country in which it’s being fought. This reality was explained by an Iraqi militia fighter in the earliest days of the insurgency. As Newsday quoted the guerrilla in July 2003,
The largest of the demonstrations appears to have taken place in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, where hundreds of thousands protested the occupation.
As al-Jazeera reported today,
Hundreds of banners saying "Down with Bush, Down with America" were carried by protesters as Iraqi police and soldiers guarded checkpoints in and around Najaf and Kufa. Many people, draped in Iraqi flags, set US flags ablaze and some trampled on and struck US and Israeli flags painted on the ground with their shoes, an act considered one of the worst insults in Arab culture.Indeed, the people of Najaf have rejected the occupation and have been demanding U.S. withdrawal for years. The city has been a thorn in the side of the occupying forces despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the Shiites gained the most from the fall of Saddam Hussein. In April of 2004, following the first anniversary of Hussein’s ouster, U.S. Marines were sent to Najaf to put down an uprising led by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As WSWS reported at the time,
"In four years of occupation, our sons have been killed and women made widows," cried Ahmed al-Mayahie, 39, a Shia from the southern city of Basra.
"The occupier raised slogans saying Iraq is free, Iraq is liberated. What freedom? What liberation? There is nothing but destruction. We do not want their liberation and their presence. We tell them to get out of our land."
Falah Hassan Shanshil, an MP from al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, said: "This crowd has come to reject the American occupation and demand its withdrawal."
American and coalition troops have checkpoints blocking all the main roads into the city. Leaflets are being distributed denouncing Sadr for the murder of a moderate Shia cleric at a Najaf mosque in April 2003. As many as 6,000 fighters loyal to Sadr are believed to be ready to resist any US attack. Local people are said to be stock-piling food, water and oil, and shop-keepers are piling sandbags around their stores, in anticipation of weeks of street-to-street fighting.The subsequent violence was captured on video and made available by the Najaf Project:
Colonel Dana Pritchard of the Third Brigade, First Infantry Division, summed up the mentality of the US forces. He told the Los Angeles Times at the beginning of the week: “My intent is to destroy Sadr’s militia, absolutely destroy it, and then to capture or kill Sadr. That’s our mission. We’re just waiting to be unleashed.”
What yesterday’s mass demonstration, well, demonstrated, is that despite the resources the U.S. has spent in pacifying Najaf, the city is no more under U.S. control than it was three years ago. The mission of destroying Sadr’s militia also appears to have failed miserably. Rather than “absolutely destroy it,” as Col. Pritchard promised three years ago, instead it seems that the U.S.’s heavy-handed tactics have strengthened it.
Just over the weekend, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting against the militia, just outside of Baghdad, where a “surge” of U.S. troops is attempting to impose some level of security on the capital city.
As the BBC reported,
US and Iraqi troops have been engaged in a second day of fierce fighting with Shia militias they are trying to oust from the central city of Diwaniya.
The fighting is part of an operation to extend the recent security drive beyond Baghdad to other parts of the country.
Jets and tanks have been supporting ground troops in the offensive against militiamen loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The weekend was one of the costliest in terms of U.S. casualties for quite a while, with ten soldiers reported killed. But the violence may get even worse in the coming weeks. Some press reports noted that the Najaf demonstration and some of fiery rhetoric from al-Sadr may be an indication of a coming offensive against U.S. forces. As the Kansas City Star is reporting today,
There were ominous signs afterward that al-Sadr’s enormous Mahdi Army militia may be preparing for renewed violence in Baghdad.
Monday evening, as protesters returned in trucks and buses to Baghdad’s sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City, a McClatchy Newspapers reporter saw men in several buses carrying pistols and AK-47s, a violation of new security laws. One man who identified himself as a Mahdi Army member bragged that weapons were being taken from Najaf to Baghdad hidden in truck beds. Najaf is about 100 miles south of Baghdad.
The rhetoric at the rally was menacing at times. “The occupation and the people connected to it will vanish,” the demonstration’s organizers said in a statement, “and Iraq will stay for Iraqis and the country for its sons.”
The deteriorating situation should not be a surprise to anyone who has even loosely followed the Iraq war for the past four years. Every single one of Bush’s promises of “turning the corner” has turned out to be empty, and every single development that was supposed to bring security to the country – whether elections, Saddam’s capture, Saddam’s execution, or the new surge – appears to have had the opposite effect.
As Bush’s Democratic opponents may blame a “failed strategy” for the mess, the reality may be instead that the situation simply reflects the nature of guerrilla war. In any war of attrition, the advantage is with the fighters who are indigenous to the country in which it’s being fought. This reality was explained by an Iraqi militia fighter in the earliest days of the insurgency. As Newsday quoted the guerrilla in July 2003,
"We have many more people and we’re a lot better organized than the Americans realize. We have been preparing for this for a long time, and we’re much more patient than the Americans. We have nowhere else to go."That simple reality has not changed. The Iraqis have nowhere else to go, and as long as unwelcome occupiers remain in their country, they will continue to resist.
Monday, April 09, 2007
'Surging' Toward Failure in Iraq
By Robert Parry
April 10, 2007
The Washington pundits and the press are all atwitter wondering how successful George W. Bush’s Iraq “surge” strategy will be and how fast the Democrats will crumble in a showdown with the steely-eyed President over his demand for $100 billion more for the war with no strings attached.
But the underlying military reality is that the United States has long since “lost” the war in Iraq. It is un-winnable in any normal sense of the word. The “surge” of sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq only guarantees that the final body count will be higher and the piles of IOUs bigger.
Read on.
April 10, 2007
The Washington pundits and the press are all atwitter wondering how successful George W. Bush’s Iraq “surge” strategy will be and how fast the Democrats will crumble in a showdown with the steely-eyed President over his demand for $100 billion more for the war with no strings attached.
But the underlying military reality is that the United States has long since “lost” the war in Iraq. It is un-winnable in any normal sense of the word. The “surge” of sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq only guarantees that the final body count will be higher and the piles of IOUs bigger.
Read on.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Bush/Cheney Still Lie with Abandon
By Robert Parry
April 6, 2007
What makes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney such extraordinary threats to the future of American democracy is their readiness to tell half-truths and outright lies consistently without any apparent fear of accountability.
While other politicians might spin some facts in a policy debate or a tell a fib about a personal indiscretion, President Bush and Vice President Cheney act as if they have the power and the right to manufacture reality itself, often on matters of grave significance that bear on war and peace or the future of the nation.
Read on.
April 6, 2007
What makes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney such extraordinary threats to the future of American democracy is their readiness to tell half-truths and outright lies consistently without any apparent fear of accountability.
While other politicians might spin some facts in a policy debate or a tell a fib about a personal indiscretion, President Bush and Vice President Cheney act as if they have the power and the right to manufacture reality itself, often on matters of grave significance that bear on war and peace or the future of the nation.
Read on.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Did Rove's Protégé Puff Up Résumé?
By Richard L. Fricker
April 3, 2007
Little Rock’s interim U.S. Attorney J. Timothy Griffin – already at the center of a firestorm over whether the White House has put politics ahead of prosecutorial integrity – made claims about his experience as an Army lawyer that have been put in doubt by military records.
The 38-year-old Griffin claims on his official Web site that he prosecuted 40 criminal cases while at Ft. Campbell, where he was stationed from September 2005 to May 2006. But Army authorities say Ft. Campbell’s records show Griffin only serving as assistant trial counsel on three cases, none of which went to trial.
Read on.
April 3, 2007
Little Rock’s interim U.S. Attorney J. Timothy Griffin – already at the center of a firestorm over whether the White House has put politics ahead of prosecutorial integrity – made claims about his experience as an Army lawyer that have been put in doubt by military records.
The 38-year-old Griffin claims on his official Web site that he prosecuted 40 criminal cases while at Ft. Campbell, where he was stationed from September 2005 to May 2006. But Army authorities say Ft. Campbell’s records show Griffin only serving as assistant trial counsel on three cases, none of which went to trial.
Read on.
Bush Out of Line Scolding Pelosi
By Ivan Eland
April 3, 2007
President Bush has scolded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. In the President’s opinion, shared by others, the U.S. government should speak with just one voice overseas. Yet that view flies in the face of both the text and the spirit of the Constitution.
Before the rise of the post–World War II imperial presidency, the powers among the branches of the U.S. government were much more balanced—as the Constitution originally intended.
Read on.
April 3, 2007
President Bush has scolded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. In the President’s opinion, shared by others, the U.S. government should speak with just one voice overseas. Yet that view flies in the face of both the text and the spirit of the Constitution.
Before the rise of the post–World War II imperial presidency, the powers among the branches of the U.S. government were much more balanced—as the Constitution originally intended.
Read on.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Bush, Iran & Selective Outrage
By Robert Parry
April 2, 2007
One of the least endearing features of Washington’s political/media hierarchy is its propensity for selective outrage, like what is now coming from George W. Bush about the “inexcusable behavior” of the Iranian government in holding 15 British sailors whom Bush has labeled “hostages.”
This is the same President Bush who often mocks the very idea that international law should apply to him; he’s fond of the punch line: “International law? I better call my lawyer.” But Bush becomes a pious defender of international law when it suits his geopolitical interests.
Read on.
April 2, 2007
One of the least endearing features of Washington’s political/media hierarchy is its propensity for selective outrage, like what is now coming from George W. Bush about the “inexcusable behavior” of the Iranian government in holding 15 British sailors whom Bush has labeled “hostages.”
This is the same President Bush who often mocks the very idea that international law should apply to him; he’s fond of the punch line: “International law? I better call my lawyer.” But Bush becomes a pious defender of international law when it suits his geopolitical interests.
Read on.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Intel Vets Question Iran-UK Crisis
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
March 30, 2007
The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.
The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.
Read on.
March 30, 2007
The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.
The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.
Read on.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Simple Calculus: Why Iran Won in Iraq
By Morgan Strong
March 29, 2007
There are two fundamental truths about the war in Iraq. The first is that the administration did not tell the American people the true reasons for this war. Whether it was through deliberate lies or by false intelligence, the consequence is equal. The second is that the democratic election that took place in Iraq in 2005 was a victory for the majority Shiite, and for their sponsors, Iran.
The administration insisted on early elections to demonstrate the Iraqi populace was prepared and eager for democratic governance. The election may have been free and democratic, but the results of the elections established the contrary.
Read on.
March 29, 2007
There are two fundamental truths about the war in Iraq. The first is that the administration did not tell the American people the true reasons for this war. Whether it was through deliberate lies or by false intelligence, the consequence is equal. The second is that the democratic election that took place in Iraq in 2005 was a victory for the majority Shiite, and for their sponsors, Iran.
The administration insisted on early elections to demonstrate the Iraqi populace was prepared and eager for democratic governance. The election may have been free and democratic, but the results of the elections established the contrary.
Read on.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
What to Do About Iran?
By Ivan Eland
March 29, 2007
The conventional wisdom for dealing with Iran is demanding repeatedly that the Iranians end their uranium enrichment program, and slapping on new sanctions.
Although the December 2006 United Nations Security Council sanctions that banned countries from exporting nuclear and missile materials and technology to Iran probably were prudent, widening the sanctions outside the nuclear and missile areas is a mistake.
Read on.
March 29, 2007
The conventional wisdom for dealing with Iran is demanding repeatedly that the Iranians end their uranium enrichment program, and slapping on new sanctions.
Although the December 2006 United Nations Security Council sanctions that banned countries from exporting nuclear and missile materials and technology to Iran probably were prudent, widening the sanctions outside the nuclear and missile areas is a mistake.
Read on.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Rise of a Very 'Loyal Bushie'
By Richard L. Fricker
March 28, 2007
If you want to know what the career path of a “loyal Bushie” looks like, let me introduce you to J. Timothy Griffin, a Karl Rove protégé who was slipped into the post of U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, and now is at the center of the controversy over whether the Bush administration has sought to politicize federal prosecutions.
Since college, the 38-year-old Griffin has been following the stations of the cross for a Republican legal/political operative with ambitions to rise to a position of power and influence in a government like the one headed by George W. Bush.
Read on.
March 28, 2007
If you want to know what the career path of a “loyal Bushie” looks like, let me introduce you to J. Timothy Griffin, a Karl Rove protégé who was slipped into the post of U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, and now is at the center of the controversy over whether the Bush administration has sought to politicize federal prosecutions.
Since college, the 38-year-old Griffin has been following the stations of the cross for a Republican legal/political operative with ambitions to rise to a position of power and influence in a government like the one headed by George W. Bush.
Read on.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The American Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
By Sam Provance
March 27, 2007
For those of you who have not heard of me, I am Sam Provance. My career as an Army sergeant came to a premature end at age 32 after eight years of decorated service, because I refused to remain silent about Abu Ghraib, where I served for five months in 2004 at the height of the abuses.
A noncommissioned officer specializing in intelligence analysis, my job at Abu Ghraib was systems administrator (“the computer guy”). But I had the misfortune of being on the night shift, saw detainees dragged in for interrogation, heard the screams, and saw many of them dragged out. I was sent back to my parent unit in Germany shortly after the Army began the first of its many self-investigations.
Read on.
March 27, 2007
For those of you who have not heard of me, I am Sam Provance. My career as an Army sergeant came to a premature end at age 32 after eight years of decorated service, because I refused to remain silent about Abu Ghraib, where I served for five months in 2004 at the height of the abuses.
A noncommissioned officer specializing in intelligence analysis, my job at Abu Ghraib was systems administrator (“the computer guy”). But I had the misfortune of being on the night shift, saw detainees dragged in for interrogation, heard the screams, and saw many of them dragged out. I was sent back to my parent unit in Germany shortly after the Army began the first of its many self-investigations.
Read on.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Fatal Flaws of Bush's 'Tough-Guy-ism'
By Robert Parry
March 26, 2007
The showdown over Iraq War funding will test the political appeal of George W. Bush’s dominant foreign policy approach – what might be called “tough-guy-ism” – the concept of picking fights and battling until “victory” whatever the ghastly cost.
“Tough-guy-ism” is a philosophy with its own historical narrative, which was put on display by Bush’s Republican defenders during the March 23 debate on a House bill to condition Iraq War funding on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.
Read on.
March 26, 2007
The showdown over Iraq War funding will test the political appeal of George W. Bush’s dominant foreign policy approach – what might be called “tough-guy-ism” – the concept of picking fights and battling until “victory” whatever the ghastly cost.
“Tough-guy-ism” is a philosophy with its own historical narrative, which was put on display by Bush’s Republican defenders during the March 23 debate on a House bill to condition Iraq War funding on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.
Read on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)