Monday, July 30, 2007



America has finally turned against the Bush Regime's Iraq occupation agenda. Bush and Cheney don't give a damn-- except inasmuch as it's a serious threat to GOP incumbents whose support they need. Mitch McConnell, their Chief Obstructionist in the Senate, for example, would lose his seat if the election were held today. In the Senate, at least 6 rubber stamp Republicans besides McConnell would probably lose elections-- John Sununu (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), Pete "Sneaky Pete" Domenici (R-NM), John Warner (R-VA), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Ted Stevens (R-AK)-- and in the House literally dozens of rubber stamp Republicans could be swept away.

So Republican congressional leaders have devised a plan to make it seem that they're changing course, while, of course, not changing anything at all. The new GOP mantra, which will be in heavy rotation on Fox and Hate Talk Radio, is "a new approach." The new approach, of course, is the old, failed approach. The premise is that U.S. troops would be taking on "narrowly limited missions" and Bush decides if and when they leave. Doesn't that sound... like more of the same?

Rubber stamp Republicans and WINOs are jumping for joy with the prospect of their brilliant new strategy. Grotesque rubber stamp Republican Phil English thinks he can save his seat. "This is a necessary adjustment in the national debate to reintroduce bipartisanship, to stop the `gotcha' politics that are going on that seem to be driven by fringes on both sides and change the terms of the discussion," said English as he downed a roast chicken, 7 hamburgers and a large chocolate fudge cake. New Mexico' worst rubber stamp phony, Heather Wilson, carefully keeping out of striking distance of English's jaws, agreed, as did the whole contingent of Republicans who have consistently voted to make it possible for Bush to go on the rampage in Iraq-- while they wrung their hands-- from Chris Shays (R-CT) to Mike Castle (R-DE)

Even easier for the rubber stamp Republicans is to just have their old co-conspirators from the media and the "think thanks"-- the ones who cheerled us into Iraq in the first place-- doing all the lying for them. If the Hearst papers' Yellow Journalism bore any responsibility for the Spanish American War and the sense of Manifest Destiny which still plagues this country-- and they did-- then the NY Times and the Washington Post must be held to account for their role in whipping up popular sentiment for the Republican lies that preceded the invasion of Iraq. The Times was back at it again today.

They published an Op-Ed by two notorious Neocon warmongers, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, claiming progress in Iraq. Glenn Greenwald has all the dope on these two shameless shills. "...the exact same people who urged us into the war in Iraq, were wrong in everything they said, and issued one false assurance after the next as the war failed, continue to be the same people held up as our Serious Iraq Experts. The exact "experts" to whom we listened in 2002 and 2003 are the same exact establishment "experts" now."
The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

Worse, they announce that "the Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility," as though they have not. But let us look at Michael O'Hanlon, and review just a fraction of the endless string of false and misleading statements he made about Iraq and ask why anyone would possibly listen to him about anything, let alone consider him an "expert" of any kind.

And then he does. And it ain't pretty. Of course, neither is this , something which hasn't been addressed by the Bush Regime or it's apologists like McConnell, O'Hanlon, Pollack.
About eight million Iraqis-- nearly a third of the population-- are without water, sanitation, food and shelter and need emergency aid, a report by two major relief agencies says.