Bush Bellows, "It's Bad In Iraq! [Does that help?]" ©
President Bush repeatedly tells us he understands. He understands that we, as a nation, have a responsibility to lead. Mr. Bush believes that he as a man must guide his "broad" coalition, regardless of its size. The alliance consists mostly of one country, the United Kingdom. Bush tells, his citizens that there is a job to "do" and some his job is to make war in the name of peace.
Prime Minister Blair and I understand that we have a responsibility to lead and to support moderates and reformers who work for change across the broader Middle East.King George W. understands "peace" and how important this prospect is for our children and grandchildren. Does he understand that if "defeat" is part of your vocabulary than peace is not what you are proposing? Tranquility is the understanding that comes with talk. Calm, caring conversation gives birth to peace.We also recognize that meeting this responsibility requires action. It will take concerted efforts to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
We stand together because we understand the only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies and help the ideology of hope and democracy prevail.
George W. Bush continually asserts he will not talk to rogue nations. Bush will not come to the table. Yet he states,
But one thing is for certain: When people -- if people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities -- to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the countryRather than approach disagreements diplomatically, this martyr, fights and then, frequently frets, "Yes, it is tough." I consistently wonder, as I listen to his constant whine, "Mr. Bush, perhaps it is too tough for you?" War and peace seem to weigh heavy on your heart.
You speak of these struggles often.
You know, in all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is.Oh, yes, it is Mr. Bush. It is tough for me to understand. Why did you choose such a path. Clearly, it causes you such angst. George, there is no reason to take on tasks that are just too tough.And the fundamental question is: Do we have a plan to achieve our objective? Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed?
And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward -- all aiming to achieve our objective.
Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is, sir.
Oh, George W., our "fair" leader I fear for you. You seem to be deeply immersed in cognitive dissonance. You say you understand there's sectarian violence. I wonder. Did you comprehend such a notion before you chose to unilaterally attack? Did the Baby Bush discuss religious wars with his Dad or did he simply decide to surround himself with yes men and women. Boy Bush, my heart bleeds when I think of your family. You know how important families' are.
I talk to the families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence.The President understands we are "hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis. It seems to me we are strengthening this group and all other "terrorists" enclaves.I also understand that we're hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice.
How are we bringing al-Qaida to justice? I do not understand. I know that innocent people are imprisoned at Guantanamo. These individuals rarely if ever have access to an attorney. Is that judicious?
Perchance I do not recognize, realize, or appreciate your benevolent actions President, Bush. It seems to me Mr. Shrub sending the blameless off to jail, to serve indeterminate sentences in detention centers continents away is an odd way of pursuing and imposing decency. When I think of democracy I do not consider what I currently see to be so. Soldiers do not spread freedom. The military is not the messenger for liberty. Yet, you say,
I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are.Mr. President, you claim to understand the struggle. You acknowledge that we are not winning an un-winnable war. According to reports, you see the threat. Still, rather than go forward and fight for what you believe is "right" you send our youth. Mr. Bush you put our soldiers in harms way and you ask our troops to slaughter the innocent. I do not understand!And, therefore, they'll have the full support of this government.
I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail.
"Gentle" George, you say that you read the reports and realize that Americans are loosing their lives, their limbs; however, you continue to choose to ignore the death and destruction. Would the war be different if you were in harm's way. I cannot help but wonder.
Is winning your only vision; is this even possible? Does anyone win in a war? I only see loss and I sigh. I think war is never a solution; However, I hear you. You claim we must triumph. Yet, again this task is hard.
I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that, if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit -- is not to adjust and say it's just not worth it.If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace and radicals and extremists.
And when you throw into the mix a radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple modern governments with energy, which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives, historians will look back and say, How come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking.
And I want to tell you, I see the threat. And I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.
And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is the threat overseas can now come home to hurt us. And September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in that part of the world.
And what happens is people can die here at home.
Dear George, in my mind, your mission created greater violence. It increases exponentially. People from home are dying. They are killed and maimed far from our shores and farther still from their families. Many breathe their last breath miles away from those they love. It is heartbreaking to consider, worse still to behold. If only you understood this!
I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough.Oh my! The bellowing Bush asserts he appreciates the question. He thanks us, his audience for listening to his lengthy answer. George W. Bush avows he understands; however, I must ask, if he did would we have gone to war? Would we as a nation continue to confront a problem that worsened with thanks to the malicious mastermind of our "Commander-In-Chief." I do not understand. It is tough for me. I am truly trying to comprehend. Yet, consistently I conclude, boast as you do Mr. Bush, you understand nothing!But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important; and, two, we'll succeed.
Thank you.
Bad Boy Bush Understands Iraq. . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 7, 2006 at 02:00 PM in Blair/Bush, Bush Press Conference, Iraq War, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq Study Group Asks, "When Will We Ever Learn To Talk?" ©
Words are bantered about. Definitive statements of opinion are posed as news.
Behold this declaration. It appears on the front page of the New York Times.This pronouncement is the first sentence in the far left column of the periodical. This placement is esteemed; thus, we are implicitly told to trust it as truth. "The military recommendations issued yesterday by the Iraq Study Group are based more on hope than history and run counter to assessments made by some of its own military advisers." The prescription and prognosis are not as the patients prefer or believe is possible.
"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the study group says.Military experts claim to be in the body of the battle. They have intimate knowledge of what is occurring and why. Might we also consider that they too are in the body politics?Jack Keane, the retired acting Army chief of staff who served on the [study] group's panel of military advisers, described that goal as entirely impractical. "Based on where we are now we can't get there," General Keane said in an interview, adding that the report's conclusions say more about "the absence of political will in Washington than the harsh realities in Iraq."
Military experts say there are several difficulties with the panel's recommendation. First, it underestimates the challenge of building a capable Iraqi security force. After several years of desultory efforts, the United States has taken steps to upgrade and better prepare the teams of American advisers who are assigned to Iraqi units. But training the Iraqi Army is more than a matter of teaching combat skills. It requires transforming the character of the force.The Colonel claims that Iraqis must learn from history and ignores that America has not. Grunow defiantly declares the Iraqi people and their government must change their strategy; yet, what of us, the United States."The new Iraqi Army will need years to become equal to the challenge posed by a persistent insurgency and terrorist threat," Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former military adviser, wrote in a recent issue of Military Review, a journal published by the United States Army.
One big problem, Colonel Grunow notes, is that the Iraqi military is not proficient in counterinsurgency operations or sufficiently sensitive to the risk of civilian casualties.
"They are still fighting their last war, the high-intensity Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a war with clear battle lines fought with mass military formations, and one in which civilians on the battlefield were a nuisance, and not a center of gravity," he wrote. The Iraqi military, he added, "must learn to fight using strategies and tactics far different than those used in the past."
Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the Iraq Study Group, said few words; yet spoke volumes, "It's a tough sell.'' Former Senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, and member of the Iraq Study Group agrees. Simpson spoke of the partisan divide in Washington. He voiced his concerns for the reception of the commission's recommendations.
"It's a strange place,'' Simpson said of Washington at the study group's Washington press conference yesterday. "But I see the American people, and the sadness to me is the American people see the Congress and the administration as dysfunctional, which is very sad for someone who loves the institution.Strangeness and strain seethe from every entity as we contemplate the situation in Iraq. As we discover in retrospect, or as some [myself included] felt since the beginning, this entanglement was never thoroughly evaluated. Now, there is an effort underway. Will it be advanced? Will the White House, Congress, or we the people ponder the counsel given? Will any of the "concerned parties" allow for options or is war all they want?"And the sad part to me is that, you know, you see people in this who are 'hundred-percenters' in America,'' Simpson said. "A 'hundred-percenter' is a person you don't want to be around. They have gas, ulcers, heartburn, and BO. And they seethe. They're not seekers. They're not seekers, they're seethers. There are a lot of them out there. And we're going to get it from the right, the far right, we're going to get it from the far left, we're going to get bombs away, and everybody will say it can't work.
"Well,'' Simpson said, "we're just sincere enough to believe that it will and that all people with a "D" behind their name did not become a guard at Lenin's tomb, and all people with an "R" behind their name did not crawl out of a cave in the mountains, and that maybe we can do something.
"And that's what we're here for, people of goodwill in good faith,'' he said. "Maybe it's corny, maybe it won't work, but it's sure as hell better than sitting there where we are right now.''
I suspect, from my own reading, listening, and interpretations the committee was essentially endeavoring to find an effective strategy, one that did not deem triumph as the true solution. Granted, I would have wished for more strident measures towards immediate withdrawal, still, I know that is just my preference. It may not be as realistic as I believe it to be. Nevertheless . . .
I, as all others only know what is in my heart, mind, and soul. I have no omniscient powers. I only have my own opinions. For me, war is never a choice. I believe, as members of the committee espouse, communication is the only answer. Without deliberations, convergence is not possible.
Yet, in the world of Washington, London, and likely other venues the "New World Order" is the plan. So many world leaders seem to posture. Nation states long to be the "superpower." Prime Ministers and Presidents ponder and promote their influence; each wishes to spread their version of the "ideal," the ideology. Who will "win"' is the concern, who will lose face, fortune, and a prominent place in history.
Let us look at our personal legacies and forget about the tens of thousands of people dying! Keeping the debate alive is perhaps more "interesting" [the term Bush used to describe the Iraq Study Group report] then establishing an authentic worldwide peace, at least it seems so for those in power. I plead, may we embark on what may interesting to some. Might we explore efforts that truly bring about world peace. May we discuss with intention and ignore our personal desire to "win." When lives are at stake, there is no graceful exit: Our entrance was not divine!
Ponder, peruse, and pursue . . . philosophies presented . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 7, 2006 at 11:03 AM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Blair/Bush, Bush 43 Administration, Communities and Communication , Current Affairs, Defiant Diplomacy, Discussion, Iraq War, Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, Spread Democracy, Success. Failure., The World Can’t Wait, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Terrorism Taunts United States, United Kingdom, Bush/Blair Alliance ©
The times they are a changing. I ask you, what are your thoughts on terrorism, here, and abroad?
Do you believe that Bush/Blair, their respective Cabinets, Intelligence, and Security agencies are addressing these concerns well?
Might you believe that were it not for policies imposed by the Bush/Blair parallel, wars would not be in the wind, in the air, on planes, trains, and subways?
I offer no opinions of my own in this short treatise. I only ask you to share your thoughts. It may be too early, too late; it may be moot. Nevertheless, I think talk can only better understanding; therefore, I invite you to discuss.
For ample discussion of this topic, you may wish to visit cross-postings at My Left Wing, Daily Kos, and Booman Tribune.
I invite you to broaden the dialogue here. Please share your stories and feelings with Be-Think readers. I thank you for contributing your comments.
The dialogue begins or ends. Dare we discuss? Please do. References for your review . . .
• Security chief: Airline terror plot 'close to execution', Plans reminiscent of an al Qaeda operation, Chertoff says. Cable News Network. Thursday, August 10, 2006; Posted: 9:15 a.m.
• Plot to Bomb Jets Is Thwarted in Britain, By Eric Pfanner. International Herald Tribune. New York Times. August 10, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 10, 2006 at 09:18 AM in Aggression, Blair/Bush, Current Affairs, Discussion, International Security, National Security, Policy, Terrorism, “Red Alert,” August 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Come To Visit, Converse With Me ©
Possibly, you, as I, look forward to our meetings with the President, infrequent as they are. Perhaps, that is why we treasure them so. These conferences are rare, though, nevertheless, a treat. When President George W. Bush asks Prime Minister Tony Blair to accompany him, well that is truly a delight. I am overjoyed. I revel in these exchanges. I can hardly wait to invite the two in my parlor for a chat. This Thursday night was such an occasion.
While the hour was late in London, and therefore, few Englishmen and women would be able to join us, I acknowledged that I was fortunate. Two men of such great stature, power, and fame [infamy] were coming to visit me. We would gather in my living room. They stated earlier that they were ready, willing, and of course able to discuss politics, particularly the Iraqi war. This was such a dream come true.
I invited each of my guests to speak first. I requested they share their points of view; I would listen, and then discuss. Blair spoke some, though his words were not as poignant as those of the President. Mr. Bush has a style and finesse that is engaging, thus, he and I conversed.
President Bush proposed, “The United States and Great Britain will work together to help this new democracy succeed.” I inquired, is it not true that a Democracy is a government chosen by the people and not forced upon them through war?
He ignored me and continued, “We'll take advantage of this moment of opportunity and work with Iraq's new government to strengthen this young democracy and achieve victory over our common enemies.” “Common enemies,” I blurted out. Might we the aggressors not be seen as adversaries?
Did we not invade a country without reason or a request? Did America and Great Britain not choose to unilaterally attack a nation of people merely to overthrow their leader? Did the “allies” and “broad coalition” not create turmoil in a land that once entertained at least a sense of stability and could they have not achieved a similar turn without all the killing? President Bush remained placid.
Mr. Bush remained good-natured and composed. His stilted smirk never betrayed him. His monologue, his mantra was steady. The naked Emperor said, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”
Mr. President I retorted loudly, “Do you really believe it was correct to enter a country on false and contrived pretenses?” “Do you think killing the young, the innocent, and the unarmed in worthy?” Do you honestly believe, battles such as the ones that you yourself, even in your youth were never willing to engage in are just?” “Mr. President,” I declared, “I think not!”
George W. Bush looked over at me, wincingly, and said, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was controversial. We did not find the weapons of mass destruction that we all believed were there, and that's raised questions about whether the sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it.”
He repeated, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.” After all, “Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people. He was a state sponsor of terror. He invaded his neighbors.” “Oh, sir,” I proclaimed with a shrug, “Is it only because there is an ocean and other countries between us that you do not believe that we too, America, invaded one or more of its neighbors?” “Are we not as a state, as a nation, sponsoring terror? Look what we have and are repeatedly creating worldwide. Both before and after our aggressions, I see little evidence of US diplomacy.”
King George II mused for a time and then replied, “We've learned from our mistakes, adjusted our methods, and have built on our successes.” Have we Mr. President?
Smugly George W. acknowledged, “No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country.” Turn on your television see what? Mr. Bush, it has been documented repeated, not since Vietnam has there been so little coverage of a war. Your administration and Pentagon have flown the fallen and wounded in at night so that photographs cannot be taken. Your own personnel have spoken of the Dover Effect and have worked to control against it!
Only recently, since citizens began exposing the truth of this war, has American been given more access. Dear George, is it not true that without citizen activism, this conflict would still be invisible?
Hemming and hawing, King George reluctantly offered, “Listen, I want our troops out, don't get me wrong. I -- you know, I -- I -- I understand what it means to have troops in harm's way, and I -- and I know the -- there's a lot of families making huge sacrifices here in America. I'll be going to a Memorial Day ceremony next Monday, paying tribute to those who've lost their life. I'm sure I will see families of the fallen. I fully understand the pressures being placed upon our military and their families.” He mumbled, “But I also understand that it is vital that we -- that we do the job, that we complete the mission.”
Apologetically, though resolute, the President affirmed, “And it has been tough. It's been tough, because we're fighting an unconventional enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. There are no rules of war for these people. But make no mistake about it. What you're seeing in Iraq could happen all over the world if we don't stand fast and achieve the objective.”
A friend of mine then reflected aloud, “Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?”
Bush recounted, “It sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here.” The living room filled with laughter, nervous chuckling. “Saying "Bring it on.” Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned -- I learned from that.” I mumbled inaudibly, “you learned that good ole boy ‘plain speaking’ is unwise; nothing more?”
Perhaps he heard me, for he then suggested there were other lessons. “And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice; they've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.” Were they Mr. President? Did America actually judge all those that were responsible or only the “peons,” the persons that were expendable?
With that, President Bush thanked me for my hospitality and said his good-byes. Would we meet again soon? I suspect the answer is as the one frequently asked, “When will the war end?” No timetable will be given.
For Fun or Fears . . .
• Transcript of Bush-Blair News Conference National Public Radio
• Blair and Bush Are Duo Even in Descent By Glenn Kessler. Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006
• President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair The White House. January 31, 2003
• President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours The White House. March 17, 2003
• President Addresses the Nation The White House. September 7, 2003
• President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended President George W. Bush, USS Abraham Lincoln, At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California. U.S. State Department. May 1, 2003
• Iraq election at-a-glance BBC News Monday, 24 January, 2005
• International Responsibilities Task Force
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Statistics
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
• Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties CNN News
• War Tracker/Archive CNN News
• Bush's Guard Service In Question, By Lois Romano. Washington Post Tuesday, February 3, 2004
• Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad CNN News. Wednesday, April 9, 2003
• The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in Iraq By Carl Mirra. CommonDreams.Org January 30, 2005
• Bush Legitimizes Terrorism, By Robert Fisk. The Independent and CounterPunch. April 16 - 18, 2004
• Administration hides reality of war. Wednesday, By Daniel A. Weiner, Rabbi. Seattlepi.com. February 4, 2004
• Photos of Military Coffins (Battlefield and Astronaut Fatalities) at Dover Air Force Base
• PDF The invisible wounded, By Mark Benjamin. Salon.com or html The invisible wounded
• Camera/Iraq
• Arab Opinions, By Khaled Dawoud. Al-Ahram Weekly, July 30, 2004
• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
• Bush: 'Bring on' attackers of U.S. troops USA Today July 2, 2003
• Bush: bin Laden 'prime suspect' CNN News. September 17, 2001
• Annals of National Security, The Gray Zone How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. May 15, 2004
• Torture at Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. April 30, 2004
• The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos AntiWar.com
• Defense rests in case of Abu Ghraib dog handler, By Stuart Grudgings. Reuters and Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006;
• Bush and Blair turn their backs on exit plans By Michael Gawenda. Fairfax Digital, The Age Company. May 27, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 26, 2006 at 07:30 PM in 'Regime Change' , Afghanistan, Aggression, Blair/Bush, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Discussion, Iraq War, Lies, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Saddam Hussein, Spread Democracy, Terrorism, Violence, War and Peace, War, The Last Option, “Freedom” and “Justice” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cindy’s Coalition Broadens; The Bush Brigade is Dissolving ©
They buried their son on Monday August 15, 2005; they mourned for a day more. Then, the parents of fallen soldier, Marine Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder II, spoke out. They meet with the press, on Tuesday, August 16. Through the media, Paul Schroeder and his wife Rosemary Palmer pleaded with the President. They said, Please “send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.”
Ms. Palmer spoke tearfully. Irritably she stated, Mr. President "We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out.” The soldier's father expressed his belief; his son and other Marines are “being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.” Mr. Schroeder continued, "Our comments are not just those of grieving parents. They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated." His wife added accusingly the idea of “staying the course is” is rigid and not realistic. The mother said the “war has gone bad.” America’s young are dying. She offered "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out - he can't just let it continue." Nevertheless, the President does.
When asked of the Schroeder-Palmer remarks, the office of our Commander-and-Chief said he declines to comment. The White House reminded the press and the public that the President addressed this issue last week. Allen Abney, administration spokesman offered, Baby Bush stands by his earlier statements. He will do as Rosemary Palmer declared he could not, he will carry on the war effort just as he has.
The Schroeder’s be damned. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen soldier Casey Sheehan be cursed, all those that support a change in strategy, according to the President, know nothing. Yet, these know nothings are growing in numbers. They are building a broad coalition; the Bush alliance is disbanding.
Since August 7, 2005, Mrs. Sheehan has been holding vigil. She is waiting for the President to speak with her, not as he did in June 2004 when she was one of many, merely the “Mom” of a fallen soldier. She wants a genuine meeting, a give and take; she is not interested in obligatory gestures. She stands strong in protest, just outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. Support for Cindy Sheehan is growing.
[Tonight, candlelight vigils are being held throughout the country for Cindy and Casey Sheehan.]
In the recent media meet with Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer, the couple spoke of Mrs. Sheehan. They stated, "We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war.” Sheehan, the Schroeder-Palmer family, and other military families are uniting. They are joining the activists and the peaceniks. As casualties are mount as American boys and girls come home in body bags, a new coalition gains ground. This one asks for peace, demands action, and does not promote greater aggression.
Families such as the Schroeder and the Sheehan’s want the President and the Pentagon to present an exit strategy, to propose a new plan. For these families and for others, it is clear, the current policy is flawed; it is not working. Daily deaths in Iraq are evidence of this.
The parents of young Edward, young Casey, and the parents, wives, sons, and daughters of other American soldiers believe, the battle was bad; though it was not as awful as victory. The President declared the war a “success” in May 2003. However, since that date, more soldiers have been killed. The slaughter increases each and every day.
Currently, there is greater rebellion, greater strife, and less unity in Iraq. The elections did not bring democracy as the President proclaimed; they brought division. Americans are beginning to realize this. They see the war on their televisions; they read of the rebellion in their newspapers, and, most importantly, as the bodies of their beautiful babies arrive home in flag draped coffins, they know that this war was not worth the effort. The toll is too high.
Citizens in the United States are waking up. They accept reports that the administration lied. The public now believes that we entered the war on false pretenses. There were no weapons of Mass Destruction. We the people of the United States were led to believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Towers and that he was the enemy. However, they learned. He was not the man behind the attacks. King George II knew this all along. He lied.
In recent months, polls show that US citizens wants out of this war. Nearly three-quarters of Americans think the number of casualties in Iraq is “unacceptable.” Six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting. More than four in 10 believe the US presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most portentous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of this nation. America is not safer.
See The Washington Post Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War, by Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Not only are citizens in this country rejecting the war and expressing a desire to leave, those in other nations are as well. In other nations, the people spoke out sooner and leaders heeded the calls.
After the bombings is Madrid on March 11, 2004, the people of Spain protested loudly. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took action. The Spanish leader pulled troops out of Iraq in April 2004.
On November 4, 2004, Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany made an announcement. He too, declared withdraw. All 300 Hungarian troops stationed in Iraq would exit by the end of March 2005.
Poland announced several weeks earlier, it would start to reduce its 2,500-strong contingent in January 2005. The Polish were considering a complete withdrawal by the end of year.
On the same day that the Schroeder-Palmer family spoke of the need for an exit strategy, the main opposition party in Japan declared their own. The party leaders stated, should they win the upcoming election, they too will plan a pullout from Iraq.
Italy has stated that they will withdraw from Iraq. The Italian government plans to begin removing troops in September 2005. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told Rai state television the pullout would take place "in agreement with our allies". Italian forces comprise the forth-largest foreign contingent in the US coalition. They have 3,000 troops in this war-torn nation.
There have long been rumors that the United Kingdom is considering an exit. The majority of people in the UK have never supported the Iraq war. Millions were protesting on the streets of London before Bush/Blair released the first bomb.
In truth, the Broad Coalition that Bush spoke of never existed. Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies wrote of this in the Brookings Daily War Report, March 24, 2003. In his exposé titled, The Coalition That Isn't, Daalder, offered,
Take the list coalition countries the White House is updating daily. Sure, there are some important allies aside from Britain—notably Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Italy as well as number of "new" Europeans. Only three countries of these allies are actually contributing combat troops and capabilities (2,000 Australian troops, a Danish submarine and naval escort, and 200 Polish troops and refueling ship)—all in all less than one percent of the total number of troops in the region. The rest of the list is a motley crew of supporters—including such powerhouses as Afghanistan, Albania, Macedonia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau.
No, the big-bad-broad-coalition never was, and with time, the sham of it will no longer be. Each day it becomes leaner, not meaner. However, fortunately, the true coalition is building; it is growing behind parents such as Cindy Sheehan, Paul Schroeder, and his wife Rosemary Palmer. May the coalition for peace be our guide and just as in the childhood rhyme, may the big “cheese” stand, alone.
I refer you to an excellent resource. The Global Policy Forum.
Wikipedia, Multinational force in Iraq, is also a good source of information.
US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005 offers an interesting story.
Possibly the best resource is IRAQ INDEX, Tracking Reconstruction and Security, in Post-Saddam Iraq, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Booking Institute may be the best resource. The following statistics are taken from this source.
COALITION CONTRIBUTORS and the numbers of MILITARY PERSONNEL IN IRAQ.
As of May 6 - June 15, 2005
➢ US 150,000
➢ United Kingdom 8,000
➢ South Korea 3,600
➢ Italy 3,000
➢ Poland 1,700
➢ Ukraine 1,650
➢ Georgia 850
➢ Romania 800
➢ Japan 550
➢ Denmark 530
➢ Bulgaria 400
➢ Australia 400
➢ Remaining 17 coalition countries 1,520
Update . . . You may wish to visit MaxSpeak. On Thursday, August 18, 2005, he wrote of another call for withdraws from Iraq. Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold, made this request. Max muses; will this be the position of others in the 2008 election. Please read 08.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 17, 2005 at 12:43 PM in Blair/Bush, Cindy and Casey Sheehan, Iraq War, Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld Remark on Ayman al-Zawahiri Tape ©
Again, the powers, super-powers that be, deny what is. Al-Qaida forces released a videotape. The intent was to share the Al-Qaida message with the Western-World. One of the top leaders of al-Qaida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, warned Britons and Americans, the policies of Prime Minister Tony Blair were to blame for the attacks on Britain. Al-Zawahiri assured an anxious public; more attacks will follow. Mr. Zawahiri stated, America will bring assaults on itself; "policies of aggression against Muslims" are the cause. Allies will experience the same.
Nonetheless, United States President George W. Bush stays strong. When asked of the terrorists tape, Mr. Bush asserted, the remarks of this al-Qaida leader do not threaten him. Mr. Bush said Mr. Zawahiri was and is a member of the terrorist group that attacked the United States on 9/11. King George II claimed it is because of persons such as Zawahiri that we are "at war." He stated Americans must stay the course; he declared they would. With the help of allies, the people of this nation will continue in their quest. We will, as he offered in years past, hunt down terrorists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri.
While speaking from his Crawford ranch, the President said, "We are defeating the terrorists in a place like Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home." He said the United States would press on, helping Iraqis write a constitution. The Western world will train Iraqi troops, and assist citizens in electing a permanent government.
Though Mr. Zawahiri warned Britons that Mr. Blair's policies "will bring upon them more destruction after the London explosions,” the Prime Minister is declining to comment. Tony Blair offered no words of wisdom to the media or to any other source.
In the past, Blair strongly rejected any tie between the attacks and Britain's role in Iraq. Days after the Pew Charitable Trust Project reported that Muslims do support aggressions against the Western-World, specifically because of Iraq war policies, Blair denied the connection.
Please read my earlier reflection on this. BLAIR AND THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER DIFFER ON TERRORISM ©
As of today, British police have not discovered definitive connections. They will not state with certainty that the London bombers are linked to al-Qaida; yet, the two groups that claim responsibility for the assaults avow that they are working with al-Qaida.
Though Blair said nothing, Secretary of State Rumsfeld did voice his feelings on the video feed. Rumsfeld denies there is a tie. He says of the accusation, “Its nonsense.” The Secretary State, states the goal of terrorism is to place fear in the hearts of the West; it has nothing to do with America-Iraq war policy.
Fascinating. One can only wonder, does the President read? Does the Prime Minister understand what research establishes? Can the Secretary be so oblivious? Do they not realize that Muslims are up in arms and American policies, past, present, and apparently, future, fuel the fire of insurgents?
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 4, 2005 at 08:30 PM in Blair/British, Blair/Bush, London Bombings, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
BLAIR WOKE UP POST 9/11. THE WORLD WENT BACK TO SLEEP. ©
OH REALLY? REALITY IS PERCEPTION. © [THE SERIES CONTINUES]
I offer the quotes, and you decide. Is this reality or perception?
Stagnation is not possible for this series; stimulation is everywhere. The British and American governments offer much material. In this the era of “metamorphosis,” meanings are malleable, dictums are delicately posed. War is wonderful; it is a means for “spreading democracy,” freedom, and liberty. Forgive me, I digress.
I share this recent release; decide for yourself, and please, share your thoughts. Do these words present the truth or a shrewd discernment?
The stage is set. On Tuesday July 26, 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair holds a press briefing. The healthy and glowing Blair appears. He is well prepared, looking the part. He always is and does. Please read this Daily Times report, Secret of Tony Blair’s healthy glow revealed and discover why this is. On this day, as on all others Mr. Blair plays a strong and solid leader; questions come, and rapidly, he retorts.
When BBC's James Landale requested a definitive answer, is there "any contributory factor" between Iraq and the London bombings, the British leader offered this . . .
"Whatever excuse these people use, I don't think we should give one inch to them. September 11 for me was a wake-up call; a lot of the world woke up for a short time, then turned over and went back to sleep again,” however, Blair continues.
"It's an obscenity to say it is concern for Iraq [that] drives these people to terrorism," he goes on. "We shouldn't allow them a vestige of an excuse."
Please express your thoughts. Do you believe Blair is attentive and aware? Did you awake, only for a moment after 9/11, and are you now asleep again? Is it ludicrous to think terrorist bombings are an outgrowth of the Bush/Blair/American/British invasion? Is this concept an excuse? Hmmm?
My thought . . . speaking of excuses, this pretext serves as one. Accuse the other of wrongdoing, present them as the enemy, as “evil,” and you can validate your own aggressions!
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 26, 2005 at 03:22 PM in Blair/British, Blair/Bush, Current Affairs, London Bombings, Reality or Perception, Terrorism, Violence, War and Peace | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
KILLED BRITISH “BOMBER” WAS NOT A THREAT. THE FASHION IS FEAR! ©
This post will be expanded; however, for now, my words cannot wait. I am appalled and I need to write. I was out and about, running errands and I heard it, the news. British officials state, they made a mistake. The man that they slaughtered publicly, on the streets of a once proudly peaceful city, had no ties to terrorism.
Please refer to the New York Times, Britain Says Man Killed by Police Had No Tie to Bombings.
Jean Charles de Menezes was an innocent man, a Brazilian citizen. He was 27-year-old and a “victim.” Police say the man exited a home that was under surveillance. Menezes was ordered to “stop!” He did not obey. In today’s world, a forum for fear, this is a crime; it is worthy of the death penalty. Therefore the police executed this monster. The British Bobbies shot the soul quickly, without hesitation. They were overzealous.
A day later, and a little too late, the London police released this statement, ‘We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground although he is still subject to formal identification. We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday. For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.”
Regrets, I too have remorse. I am sad that we accept living in a world where “fear” is the fashion.” I find it heartbreaking that this flourishes. It has since President of the United States, George W. Bush, said it must.
Mr. Bush told us we have “enemies”; there is an axis of “evil,” and we must fight! We do; we unilaterally attack. We assail a man that exits a home. His clothing is too bulky, and therefore, inappropriate. The British police are suspicious; they were trained to be post 9/11. They take chase, and at point blank range they shoot this innocent man to death! They do this without discussion, thought, or care.
Citizens say they are horrified and yet, it is accepted; this is the fashion of the times. We will wear it well, or so said some Londoners immediately after the slaughter. What will they say now? What will you say? Please stand up and speak. Please promote peace, globally.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 23, 2005 at 05:45 PM in Blair/Bush, London Bombings, Policy, Terrorism, Violence | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
LONDON BOMBINGS OCCUR AGAIN. PEW TRUST RESEARCH LESSONS NOT LEARNED. ©
On Thursday, July 21, 2005, the London transit system was rocked, again. Londoners were and are, not surprisingly, shaken. Four explosions ripped through the tube. These blasts occurred just two weeks after terrorist bombers struck three London Underground stations and a double-decker bus.
Just as he did on July 7, 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the people of London to remain calm. He asked that they return to their normal routines "as soon as possible." Londoners attempted to return to their “usual schedules” after the earlier assaults; however it was a challenge.
Days ago, I wrote a treatise exploring the reason. Many citizens of the United Kingdom had read the results of a Pew Research Project survey. They knew there was reason to worry. It was clear the Bush/America/Blair/Britain war policy was, in large part, responsible for the July 7th occurrences. In that missive I spoke of lessons and leanings. Sadly, I acknowledged that for some, growth and awareness are slow in coming.
Please read and reflect upon the essay. Blair and The Pew Research Center Differ on Terrorism ©
Today, Thursday, July 21, 2005, I plead.
Dear Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush . . . Please read the Pew Research. Think about the findings. Please acknowledge the Muslim-majority in six countries strongly oppose America and British interests. Please realize that terrorist have supporters even in the United States and England. Violent aggression against Western nations involved in the Iraq invasion and occupation is appreciated and considered valid. There is a correlation between assaults and policy. Please, consider these.
Prime Minister Blair, you may not listen to me, however, please, listen to the concerns of English citizens. They have been trying to speak to you for years.
Rather than comfort, with words such as, "We know why these things are done. They're done to scare people and to frighten them, to make them anxious and worried." Please concede, it works; people are terrified. They fear their own Prime Minister does not know why these attacks occur; he does not truly understand.
Citizens of the United Kingdom are not reassured by swift investigations, or sterner standards. They experience the influence of insurgents is expanding. They know Muslim rebels were able to persuade British homegrown boys to join them.
Mr. Blair, please do muffle the distress; address it! Your constituents have been requesting this for years. They have long protested British involvement in the Iraq war. The British people recently stressed their opposition to the war through their vote. Prime Minister Blair, during the last election your Labour party lost 101 seats in Parliament. After the voting you publicly recognized the loss was a reflection of an angry populace. You stated, listening is important. Yet, the earlier course of action continued. The people’s preference was still ignored.
Prime Minister Blair, “fanaticism” has a foundation. Those you label as "fanatics" feel that their violence is just. Remember the results of the Pew Research Project. There is substantial support for Osama Bin Laden, al Queda, and violent attacks against Western nations that participate in the Iraq war; you and your nation are experiencing it.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 21, 2005 at 03:00 PM in Blair/Bush, Current Affairs, London Bombings, Pew Trust Research, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
BLAIR IS BECOMING HIS OWN MAN? BRITISH PLAN TO CUT TROOPS ©
Early in June 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, approached President of the United States, George W. Bush; the two met in Washington DC. Blair was asking for help. This was novel. Usually, King George II is soliciting Blair. Nevertheless, this occasion differed. Mr. Blair was hoping to recruit Mr. Bush. He proposed a plan for reducing global warming. Ultimately, Blair stated, we need to eliminate emissions that harm the environment.
In this same discussion, the Prime Minister addressed the issue of aid to Africa. Blair was eager; he hoped to help lift African nations from poverty. The English leader was elated by the Bush promise, providing $674 million for famine relief. He considered this a great beginning. However, he wanted more. As the two discussed these topics, it was apparent they did not agree. Prime Minister Blair left the Whitehouse with little, but his pride. For the first time in years, he was standing up to Bush.
As time passes, there is reason to believe that Blair will do this again. Last week at the G8 Summit, the two came together again. Physically they were in the same place; philosophically they were not. Bush remained adamantly opposed to environmental protections. He could understand imposing these on other nations; however, America must be exempt. The President declared the United States of America is not responsible for “world” pollution.
Not surprisingly, Bush was stalwart and stubborn. In speaking for the United States, the President said, he would not increase the allocation for foreign aid. Though America contributes less of their national income to foreign assistance, then any other nation, the President was unwilling to give more. Blair did not buckle, while conciliatory, he was firm.
Now, as of July 10, 2005, we discover Blair and the Brits may be moving further from the States. A “confidential British military assessment” was exposed. This memorandum “examines the possibility of drastically cutting troop strength in Iraq by the end of next year.” The United Kingdom may reduce troop involvement from the current 8,500 to 3,000. The correspondence was leaked to a British periodical, The Mail, on Sunday. The communiqué raised the “possibility of a sharp drop in the number of troops the United States and other allies have in Iraq by the middle of 2006.”
Britain Defense Minister John Reid confirmed the document's authenticity. However, he endeavored to stress that this was not a serious shift from current policy. This British official stated it was one of many of papers, each suggesting scenarios for the transfer of power. Reid retorted, Iraqi forces will become responsible for their own security; this was always the plan. The United Sates Pentagon chimed in; no final decisions were made. For now, the number of soldiers serving in Iraq would remain stable; there are no timetables for withdrawal. However, there is reason for doubt. Blair is beginning to be his own man and the Bush administration is well known for distributing misinformation.
There are other reasons for wonder. Recently, Bush and Blair have not been simpatico. As stated, Blair is speaking out against Bush policies, often. Though he does so quietly and cautiously, he is doing this continuously.
Since May 2005, Prime Minister Blair seems to be increasingly aware that his relationship with President Bush has hurt him. His credibility suffers. His Labour party lost 101 seats in Parliament during this last election. In large part, the people of England see Blair as a Bush puppet. They have said so for years. Now they have spoken more loudly. Votes were their collective voice. They want no more Bushit. Blair may be thinking the same. This May 2005 election seems to have made an impression on the Prime Minister.
For a time, the Bush Blair relationship has been fruitful, at least for the American President. Bush wanted Blair; he needed Blair, and for some reason, Blair acted as though he wanted and needed Bush. The President did not wish to provoke his one and only strong ally. However, Bush had his base to consider, and often what his base wanted, offended the sensibility of Blair and the Brits.
Blair let this be for quite some time. However, in May, after retaining his seat for the third time, the Prime Minister spoke. Blair told supporters, "We have got to listen to the people and respond wisely and sensibly." It seems finally, Blair is.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 11, 2005 at 02:16 PM in Blair/Bush, Iraq War | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
