U.S. must admit its error and withdraw from Iraq

In a report submitted to the U.S. president and the Congress, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group admitted that in Iraq the situation is "grave and deteriorating" and "there is no path that can guarantee success." The Bush administration's Iraq policy has clearly reached a dead end.

It's nice to have someone confirm what over half of the U.S. and almost three-quarters (see article linked above) already know. Too bad The Decider isn't going to listen, despite his so-called "listening tour".

Note to all the newly-elected Democrats in the House and Senate:

Hello, newly-elected Democrats! We hope you're enjoying your new jobs and nice offices, however, please keep the following in mind.

We didn't elect you because we necessarily like you, or even believe that you'll do a much better job than your predecessors. We know that, eventually, you'll kowtow to rich lobbyists and Big Business just like they did.

No, you've been elected to do three things for us, the American People:

1. Pull our troops the hell out of Iraq, and

2. Impeach Bush and Cheney, and finally

3. Prepare War Criminal Hearing against the men listed in point 2, as well as their cohorts/co-conspirators.

When you wake up in the morning, and ask yourself, "I wonder what's on my agenda for today," take a look at your to-do list. If it looks different than what's printed above, you're not doing what you've been elected to do.

Sincerely,

The people who voted you into office.

It's All About The Body Count

Jeebus. George Bush is now touting the number of dead Iraqis as a measure of US progress in the War on Terra. Why start tossing out body counts? Well, according to Tony Snow, it's "to offset concern about U.S. casualties and deaths." Tit for tat.

But let's do some math on the tit for tat*. Let's say for argument's sake that US forces did kill or capture 5900 of "the enemy" in October and November. Now, Iraq's population is supposed to be about 27 million, although over 50,000 of these have died from war related violence, and continue to be killed at the rate of about 3500 a month. Also, 2.3 million of these - including up to 40% of professionals - have fled the violence there. Let's say there are 25 million people still there, who are leaving at the rate of 2000-3000 each day.

So, 2500 leaving each day, another 115 or so civilians killed by insurgents, and another 100 or so insurgents getting killed or captured by US forces - according to The Decider. At this rate, it will take about 25 years to empty the country completely.

Now, with 100 or so US troop casualties every month in Iraq, we would only lose 30,000 US soldiers over those 25 years - you can see why Bush likes the odds. 27 million of theirs for only 33 thousand of ours? Brilliant.

Until, of course, you start thinking about all the angry refugees who are flooding out of the country and feeling upset about their loved ones maimed, tortured and/or killed during the US occupation. Hmmm. So 2.3 million refugees now, plus another 900,000 or so each year ... about 78,000 of the ones still there (civilian and insurgent) get killed each year ... so let's figure that each refugee knows at least a couple of vicitims of the US invasion and its aftermath. What if - for argument's sake - every 100 dead Iraqis pushes one refugee over the edge into vengeance mode? That would be around 780 new bloodthirsty terrorists created each year.

And here's where it gets scary. Al Qaeda had about 200 members on its roster when it crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 3000 people on American soil. 200 members was all it took to come up with 19 kids crafty enough and committed enough to kill thousands of Americans right in the middle of Manhattan.

So, if a 200-member Al Qaeda could cough up 19 highly effective murderers, and if we are adding 780 or more new angry, vengeance-driven refugee jihadists to the global population every year, then we are looking, it would seem, at the potential for about 4 more 9/11-style attacks each year over the 25 years it takes to empty Iraq. Assuming the terrorists don't get smarter.

So, 4 more attacks each year ... 12,000 US civilians each year ... which means that while we drive Iraq's population down to 0 over the next 25 years, we will lose 300,000 of our own people (on top of the 30,000 soldier casualties).

Of course, that would still leave us with more than 300,000,000 people at the end of the day.

So I guess we would win, after all.

* I'm a poet, not a mathematician, so feel free to correct my numbers in the comments ...

What Would Jesus Want Bush To Do?

Here's what worries me about George Bush, Iraq, and the delay, until "at least January," of a change in direction.

Some say stupid, some say peevish, some say petty, but pretty much everyone agrees that one thing George Bush is, is incurious:



And, we know Bush has something of an Apocalyptic worldview with a touch of Messiah complex. As Bruce Bartlett said,

" ... this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do ... This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists. He believes you have to kill them all ... He understands them, because he's just like them ... This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts ... He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms the need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence ... "

Now, this is the man who's going to take the Christmas holidays (and believe me, it's CHRISTMAS holidays in the Bush house) reflecting on whether there should be a change in direction in Iraq. So is he going to listen to the Wise Old Men? Will he withdraw to the ever-shrinking group of loyal sycophants who will tell him what he wants to hear? Will he "get curiosity" and start asking hard questions and learning hard lessons about the havoc his policies have wreaked?

Or is he going to get down on his knees and listen to Jesus ... the same Jesus who supposedly told him that he should be President?

Infiltrating the Heartland of the Homeland

We usually stay away from cheap shots here at Impeachable Treason, but I can't resist.

So, speaking of the ongoing monumental struggle between good and evil (see Trubnikovsky, below), what is it with the closeted gay Evangelical megachurch preachers in Colorado?

If this were happening to Evangelical megachurch pastors in southern California or New England, we might be able to blame it on the tofu in the diet ... but this is COLORADO, for cryin' out loud. These people eat sheep and cows and bison and whatnot without even cooking them. I think potatoes are the only vegetable product they get on a regular basis.

I can only think of one explanation, and it's terrifying. Somehow, those in charge of The Homosexual Agenda have infiltrated the heartland and are using their mystical powers to gayify leaders who would otherwise be toiling dutifully away at building an army of young Bush worshippers.

Why are our soldiers bogged down in the desert when this kind of attack is happening right here in the Homeland?

Please, Donny, Explain it to Me One More Time

Are you kidding me? "The nature of the struggle" is abundantly clear to me, and the president has had how many years to explain it to Americans and the rest of the world? We are all listening, Mr. President. Please, please, please explain it to us. Get on TV and explain it to us. We all WANT to understand and we want you to explain it to us. The problem is not that Americans don't understand the threat. The problem is that the president and his administration were totally off the mark when they invaded Iraq to fight their "war on terror". Selling a war to the public is monumentally more difficult when the pretenses under which you decided to invade were completely wrong. WMD? Nope. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Nope- but they're there now. Iraq involvement in 9/11? Nope. The list goes on and we are sick of hearing about it. And lets not forget that prior to invading and well into the first year of the war, the president didnt even know that there were two rival sects within the muslim faith- not to mention HOW they differed. How do you expect the American public to support a war when the reasons for invading keep changing and the president himself is incapable of articulating anything beyond the mentality of a 12-year old, like "its a monumental struggle of good versus evil... a clash of civilizations." Good riddance, you jackass.

"It's fair to say that [the president] is faced ­with a situation in which, because of the nature of the struggle and the fact that it is not well understood by the American people, the president has the task of managing and maintaining sufficient support for the things he believes are necessary for our country's safety. He has to take into account the reality that, only if we persevere, do we have an opportunity to succeed."

Ahhh, Christmas in Crawford. Finger Pointing, Anyone?

So, how many more American soldiers will die in the desert while Bush takes the holidays in Crawford to figure out how to blame the mess in Iraq on somebody else?

"An ABC News poll found seven in 10 Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq and 61 percent said the war there was not worth fighting ... The polls come amid signs the Bush administration, and to some extent the Iraq Study Group, have sought to place more responsibility on the Iraqis for their predicament. 'There is a consistent theme running through the Baker Hamilton report and the administration's present efforts to try to shift not just responsibility but also blame onto the Iraqis for the fact that things aren't going better,' said Lee Feinstein, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. '

I think what people are preparing for is failure and so trying to shift the blame before the chips fall,' he added."

In Love With Bush & Disconnected From Reality

Nora Ephron touches on something interesting here ...
"Condi saw her job as "conflict resolution ... Thousands of hours were wasted by searching for middle ground, which most of the time will not exist." Ledeen claims that the best way to understand the Bush Administration is to look at who the most powerful people in the White House are: "They are women who are in love with the President: Laura, Condi, Harriet Miers and Karen Hughes."
... Meanwhile, the woman is still with us, more powerful and more disconnected from reality than ever. She apparently still believes there's no point in talking to Syria and Iran. She still believes that democracy is a feasible goal in Iraq ... "

OK. Now, nobody's saying that ALL of those women in love with Bush are sleeping with him - just some of them. But what I AM saying is that all of those women in love with Bush are disconnected from reality. That disconnection from reality is, it seems, a prerequisite for being in love with the man. Or vice-versa. Is it just me, or is there also something creepy about the alternating vacant stares/painted-on-smiles that one finds in these same Bush-loving/reality-disconnected ladies?

Jesus Camp Bush Worship

Ahhh, so this is why Bush is so sure that history will judge him kindly. He's training an army of preteen spiritual warriors to worship him. Brainwashing the kids at Jesus Camp. Dear God what a sick place we have become under this dynasty.

Here We Go

Rep. McKinney lays down the impeachment resolution on the way out the door.

"H. Res. 1106
Resolved, that George Walker Bush, President of the United States,is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLE I: FAILURE TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ...
ARTICLE II: ABUSE OF POWER AND EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ...
ARTICLE III: FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED ...

... In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment, and trial, and removal from government." (emphasis added).

John Nichols: "... McKinney's move ought not be casually discounted. As a legislative veteran whose service at the state and federal levels goes back almost 20 years, she well understands that the coming investigations of administration wrongdoing could well put impeachment back on the table.

McKinney speaks for a great many House Democrats who, while they may currently be honoring their leadership's calls for caution on the issue, fully recognize that the president and vice president need to be held to account for their disregard of the rule of law and their Constitutionally-defined responsibilities ...

McKinney speaks, as well, for the 51 percent of Americans who, according to a Newsweek Poll conducted on the eve of the November 7 election, expressed support for impeachment of the president. In that poll, 47 percent of Democrats said that impeachment should be a "top priority" of their party if it took control of the House, as did an intriguing 5 percent of Republicans." (emphasis added)