John McCain in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

The elected head of state of sovereign Iraq said this to Der Spiegel this past weekend:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

and

“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”

The Bush Administration first blundered by promoting the Spiegel article to its press distribution list rather than an internal distribution list, and then sometime on Sunday, Maliki issued a “clarification” of his remarks, which was puzzlingly released through the US Central Command.

Oh, and did I mention that Maliki’s “clarification” came after the White House called him to tell him to “clarify”?

From the New York Times:

Mr. Maliki’s interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

So, the Iraqis trotted out a guy to say that Spiegel screwed up the translation.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter worked for Maliki - not Spiegel, and the Times got a hold of the tape, and offers this direct translation from its original Arabic:

“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

And all of this comes during a campaign where McCain and Bush have steadfastly refused to consider a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq, lest it be perceived as failure. The Republicans have been trying to apply the “cut & run” language they used against Kerry against Obama, but 2004 is different from 2008. So different, in fact, that the White House itself has had to acknowledge that some sort of pullout is going to happen, but they prefer to call it a “time horizon” or somesuch.

By talking pullout, Bush and Maliki have effectively removed one of the big rationales behind McCain’s candidacy.

(EDITS: Links added, corrections made)

Bush is at this year’s complete-waste-of-time-o-rama, the G8 summit, where he ended a meeting with a funny quip that might someday find its way onto the Times’ crossword puzzle:

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world’s richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

Man, that’s funny. Climate change aside, pollution is something that intelligent people agree is negative. Why is the President behaving like an attention-starved eight year-old at a summit of the eight richest countries?

Not satisfied with just uttering Pythonesque absurdities, Bush also decided that it would be a swell idea to insult Italy and its Prime Minister:

Mr Bush also faced criticism at the summit after Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was described in the White House press pack given to journalists as one of the “most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice”.

Luckily, our long national nightmare comes to an end - regardless of the outcome of this year’s Presidential election - on January 20, 2009. Only 193 days to go!

How can you argue with logic like this?

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God’s Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God’s candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God’s president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

When Republicans cry with indignation at mistreatment of John McCain, let us not forget 2004. Back then, the GOP brought new meaning to “honoring service” of a veteran and political civility. Kerry received three Purple Hearts serving in combat in Vietnam. That’s three more than Bush, Rove, and Cheney combined. This is how, in 2004, Bush’s supporters honored his service:

So, the civility bar has been set remarkably low, and so far the only thing that’s been questioned is whether getting shot down over Hanoi is a qualification for the Presidency. When Wes Clark made that observation, Bob Dole awoke from Bob Dole’s slumber. Bob Dole said this:

“The attack by General Wesley Clark on Senator John McCain’s war record and qualifications for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Clark’s absurd remarks signal further erosion in our nation’s political discourse. He should have stayed in bed Sunday morning.

It’s unfortunate that a former General who ran for the presidency on his own war record thinks it appropriate to attack a distinguished veteran and former prisoner-of-war in this way. Senator McCain’s entire life has been devoted to public service. His achievement and experience constitute unparalleled qualification for America’s highest office.”

This is what Bob Dole said in 2004 about John Kerry’s service:

And last week, former Sen. Bob Dole, the party’s 1996 presidential nominee, brought more attention to the allegations when he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “With three Purple Hearts, he never bled that I know of. And they’re all superficial wounds.”

In other words, Senator Dole, the erosion of our political discourse was helped along by the likes of you.

I happen to think that there is no set of qualifications for the Presidency. If there were, we could just us a headhunter and solicit resumes. So the question itself is a dumb one.

But gasps of righteous indignation from the crowd that wore purple-heart laden Band-Aids ring very hollow indeed.

HT The Humanist.

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

After much ribbing about the non-existent and/or empty “views” section of his website, Republican candidate for Congress in the 26th district has finally gotten around to having some.

I am running for Congress to bring real change to Washington, D.C., restore accountability, get people to stop the partisan bickering and start solving the problems families are facing. This is what Western New Yorkers are demanding, and it is what they deserve.

By working together we can make these things happen, and we can get Washington working again for Western New York.

If we do that then we can help create jobs at home, lower taxes for hard working families, develop a real energy policy, and ensure access to affordable healthcare for all Western New Yorkers.

Washington working for Western New York. That’s a great idea. Um, what’s his predecessor been doing along those lines for the past 10 years? It’s all platitudes cribbed from some primer on how to run as a Republican but sounding like a Democrat. Republicans don’t give a shit about “affordable healthcare”. They’re far more concerned with taxation of the wealthiest 1%, not “hard working families”.

The most important thing for our families is having jobs not just for us, but for our children. Right now Western New York is facing the challenge of entering a 21st century economy and not having enough jobs for our children. Fortunately, Western New York is well equipped to face these challenges. We have a world-class workforce, excellent educational institutions and a work ethic second to none. What needs to happen is the government, in Washington and Albany, needs to get out of the way and let businesses do what they do best – create jobs. When I am elected, I will fight everyday for policies that increase the incentives for businesses to take risks, be entrepreneurial and ultimately create jobs.

How is Washington in the way, and would he do to get it out of said way? Taxes and spending, evidently - no surprise, coming from a Republican candidate. The problem is that the Republican party has put the Democrats to shame in terms of the growth of government and government spending at the federal level since George W. Bush came to office. Why are we to believe that Lee would not help perpetuate that state of affairs? Bush has grown government, kept taxes low to help the budget deficit balloon, engaged in nation-building adventures in the middle east and then shortchanged them when it got difficult.

Definitely Washington is broken. Definitely Albany is broken. What can Lee as a congressman do to fix Albany? Again - platitudes that sound phenomenal but have no meat to them.

Lee also says we need a “comprehensive energy policy”:

- Lessen our dependence on foreign oil by increasing American made energy through exploration;
- Promote new, clean, reliable sources of energy;
- Encourage conservation, and;
- Increase investment in research funding for alternative energy.

Respectively, how, what, how, and what? The call from McCain and Bush has been for drilling everywhere. Respectfully, that’s like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation site. Nice sentiment, but it would take literally years - if not a decade - before any such drilling would have any effect on the market. Furthermore, conservation is now in full effect, given the cost of fuel. Price is up, demand is way down. So, if all this is run by the market, why does lower demand equal ever-higher prices?

Again - demand for gasoline has been dropping, yet the price continues to rise. The idea that this is just market forces at work doesn’t fly. In 2008, it is high time that we develop and reach a consensus on a fuel for personal conveyances to replace petroleum. We’re using technology that’s over 100 years old.

Lee also believes that health care is an issue. The buzzword is “market-based”. Anything the Republicans recommend will be characterized as “market-based”, while they will criticize the Democrats’ plans as being “socialized medicine”. Meanwhile, all of the plans being suggested are market-based. No one is proposing socialized medicine.

While Mr. Lee complains that WNY is not getting its fair share of federal dollars, he also argues:

I will fight for a more transparent and fair system that will ensure real earmark reform. Any dollar being spent by the federal government should be done so in the light of day not behind closed doors. I want to change the way Washington does business by ensuring that we have an open system that holds our leaders accountable. Just like a CEO would want, Western New Yorkers deserve to know exactly how their money is being spent - that can only happen with a more transparent and accountable Washington.

How? What sort of transparency is he proposing? And which is it? More fair share, or fewer earmarks?

In other news, Chris Lee held a fundraiser last night. It was a swanky affair at the Marriott on Millersport. All of the Republican glitterati were in attendance, and Tom Reynolds introduced Lee to the crowd. Illuzzi was there enjoying the free food, making subtle threats, and writes:

I had the pleasure of attending what was truly an “All-Star” fundraising event last night kicking off NY 26 Congressional Candidate Chris Lee’s fundraising efforts.

Congressman Tom Reynolds declared the event to have set a new record for a first time candidate’s congressional fundraising event. Over 300 people in attendance!!! Early estimates are over $175,000 raised at the event.

That averages out to over $580 per person.

Lee is an unemployed child of wealth who inherited part of the sell-out of his father’s business. He’s pledged to spend $1 million of his own money on the race. Will he, like Chris Collins, forego his federal salary if elected? I recall Jack Davis making that pledge 2 years ago. Why should taxpayers cut a six-figure check with benefits and pension for a millionaire heir?

Remember al Qaeda?

Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired CIA officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 Arab and Pakistani militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

Bush is nothing but epic fail from day one to day 2,922.

But while Bush vowed early on that Bin Laden would be captured “dead or alive,” the moment in late 2001 when Bin Laden and his followers escaped at Tora Bora was almost certainly the last time the Qaeda leader was in American sights, current and former intelligence officials say. Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil.

Remember that next time you take your shoes off at the airport. To quote Robert DeNiro’s Al Capone in the Untouchables, Bush and is nothing “but a lot of talk and a badge.”

George W. Bush in May:

As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

(Note that the senator in question was a Republican Senator from Idaho

George W. Bush in June:

In more than two years of negotiations, the man who once declared North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq, angrily vowing to confront, not negotiate with, its despotic leader, in fact demonstrated a flexibility that his critics at home and abroad once considered impossible.

That is why Mr. Bush is likely to receive only grudging credit, if any, for the accomplishment, which could turn out to be the last significant diplomatic breakthrough of his presidency.

North Korea’s declaration — and the administration’s quid pro quo lifting of some sanctions — faced criticism from conservatives who attacked it as too little and from liberals who said it came too late.

“The regime’s nuclear declaration is the latest reminder that, despite Mr. Bush’s once bellicose rhetoric, engaging our enemies can pay dividends,” Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom Mr. Bush defeated in the 2004 presidential election, said in a statement after the declaration on Thursday.

“Historians will long wonder,” he continued, “why this administration did not directly engage North Korea before Pyongyang gathered enough material for several nuclear weapons, tested a nuclear device and the missiles to deliver them.”

For the record, I fully support the Bush administration’s efforts diplomatically to engage North Korea and Iran. It’s important to talk to our enemies in an effort to make the world a safer place. We cannot refuse to speak to certain countries out of some respect for morality or human rights - American history is replete with evidence that we are quite happy to speak with despotic regimes of all shapes and sizes, if not engage in full diplomatic relations with them.

I only wish that Bush wouldn’t trot out “appeasement” and Chamberlain and Munich and 1938 and Hitler as an adjective for talks with other enemies that aren’t North Korea. It is counterproductive, ignorant, and stupid. Also, KCNA doesn’t have anything up about it yet.

Oftentimes, diplomacy and moderation can trump aggression and extremism.

Rus Thompson posted this today, and naturally I had to click through and see whether or not the Los Angeles Times had, in fact, declared that Bush didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. One would expect to see a piece written by the editorial board of the LA Times, given such a declaration.

Instead, we have an op-ed submission written by an author for the New Republic. It argues that Bush didn’t lie - he merely got bad intelligence.

Two words: Hans Blix.

The problem with the “bad intelligence” meme completely ignores reality - UNMOVIC’s efforts in late 2002 to verify every piece of alleged evidence the US said it had about WMDs. Hans Blix and his inspectors checked up on every lead the Bush Administration deigned to release to him, and UNMOVIC found nothing. Maybe the intelligence was bad, but UN inspectors verified its falsity at the time, so the attempts to legitimize our attack on Iraq under UN auspices were knowingly false.

Whether you define “knowingly false” as equal to “lie” is a semantic issue I leave up to you, dear reader.

First Lady Laura Bush is traveling around Afghanistan, and is traveling via troop transport aircraft.

The seats and atmosphere in said aircraft are, evidently, unfit for a First Lady, so special accommodations have been arranged:

As the always-entertaining and smug British press puts it,

With wood panelling, plush grey carpet, comfy leather seats and, most importantly, thick window shades, Mrs Bush could forget she was anywhere near the War on Terror being played out below the clouds.

While travelling she could have been entertained by her TV and DVD player, hosted cocktail parties or, alternatively, she could have a nap in a choice of two beds.

It is one of 11 ‘Senior Leader In Transit Conference Capsules’ the US government plans to position at various locations around the world, at a cost of £8,000 each.

That’s not the best part.

The best part is the name of the aircraft in which the Airstream trailer is found:

The Spirit of Strom Thurmond. No word on whether the aircraft is segregated by race.

Why does James Baker hate America?

UPDATE: Apparently, General Petraeus is also an America-hating, naive, inexperienced appeaser! CHAMBERLAIN!!@@##

The neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of the Peace Bridge has been designated as one of the 11 most endangered places in the United States. Part of the Peace Bridge project involves the construction of a new customs plaza, and this would require the demolition of several homes in this very attractive community.

The original plan had been to have border management shared on the Canadian side of the river. American DHS officials would check passports and handle customs matters on Canadian soil to avoid idling on the bridge and to streamline operations. The problem was that Canada would not permit US officials to fingerprint motorists who simply changed their minds and made a U-turn rather than cross the border. That is violative of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the US would not relent on that one point.

Interestingly, the Canadians suggested several alternatives to permit US inspectors to have real or quasi-US sovereignty at those booths - everything from the airport model, where US inspectors check you before leaving, e.g., the Bahamas, to literally swapping land, to embassy-like sovereignty, to Chunnel-style border pre-clearance. Nothing was satisfactory to the Bush Administration.

Let’s be honest - the fact that the federal government nixed all of these possible solutions was extraordinarily short-sighted and stupid

As much as I can’t stand the use of a Joni Mitchell song to make a point, and as much as I’m annoyed as hell by the terms “built environment” and “sense of place”, I agree that the Peace Bridge project as currently constituted should not go forward.

Buffalo obviously has no use for a signature bridge or a twin span or anything else. What’s the point? Its construction has been hindered by everything from a decade-long design process to bird flight patterns to fish swim patterns to Bush intransigence.

But this region absolutely needs improvements made to border crossing to Canada - something that could be very helpful to our economy.

The new span from Canada should not be at the Peace Bridge, and it should not be at the Railroad bridge either. What’s the point of building a bridge at a spot where it has to make a 90-degree turn the moment it hits US soil? What’s the point of building a bridge at the Scajaquada, which people are already demanding be downgraded to a skate park or something?

Instead, we need:

1. A companion span at the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge. It has the most congestion of any bridge crossing at just about any given non-Bills game time and handles a lot of truck traffic due to the fact that it’s the easiest connection from 405 to the I-190. An expansion of existing Customs facilities would also be needed.

2. A 21st century signage system peppered throughout WNY that shows motorists exactly which bridges have what delay. NITTEC has been using the overhead programmable signs to do just that over the last few days, and it’s been quite helpful, I’m sure, to visiting Victoria Day holidaymakers and shoppers. Separate, similar signs should be installed throughout our region and on the QEW in Ontario.

I don’t disagree that the Columbus Parkway neighborhood is worth preserving, and the uncertainty is probably in some ways more harmful than the demolition itself might be. But let’s scrap the whole Peace Bridge nonsense while we’re ahead.

If it was wanted or needed, it would have been built years ago. Let some other area both reap the benefit and suffer the inconvenience that comes with a new international bridge.

President Bush took time out in Israel today by accusing Democrats of being modern-day Nevilles Chamberlain.

In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of “appeasement” of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish-Americans. Those doubts were already stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas.

We have not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979. Have we changed their regime? Have we changed Iran’s behavior on the world stage? Have we put a stop to Hezbollah or Hamas by refusing to talk with them? We have not had diplomatic relations with Cuba since 1961. Did that stop Castro? Did that democratize Cuba? What a load of ignorant horseshit.

In 1939, as Hitler began his march across Europe, there were many, many people who wanted to avoid another world war, given the utter devastation that the first one had had on the continent. The appeasers of that time actually ceded control of territory to Hitler based on his promises that he’d be all done grabbing territory once he had the, e.g., Sudetenland.

That. Is. Not. What. Is. Being. Suggested. Here. You know who’s saying stuff like, “maybe we give the Golan Heights back to Syria in exchange for peace?” Israel. That’s who.

What harm is there to hold talks with nation-states that are our enemies? That it conveys some sort of legitimacy to them? Their legitimacy - or lack thereof - is an internal matter. If a particular government holds a seat at the UN, or holds itself out to be the duly constituted representative of a country, there’s little we can do to change that. What basis does the US have to challenge the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s regime?

For too long, this country has held a country’s good behavior as a prerequisite to high-level discussions. (Except for poorly-behaving countries that have oil or are anti-Communist or otherwise agree to promote US interests in some way). So, we’re being hypocritical about it all from jump street.

Does it not cross anyone’s mind that talks might lead to good behavior? Yes, Syria and Iran are causing havoc in Lebanon right now. Well, the Lebanese government is useless, we don’t talk to Iran, and we’re loath to talk to Syria (even though the Israelis are working towards doing that, using Egypt as a go-between). These countries with whom we refuse to speak are like the problem kid in school who thrives on negative attention. Sometimes, the carrot works a whole lot better than the stick.

But…um…here’s my question. Isn’t what Bush did here supposed to be off-limits?

When a Dixie Chick - a Dixie Chick had the bare-faced gall to criticize Bush to a UK audience, she was excoriated for being a traitor, or worse. But the President of the United States - it’s ok for him to launch an attack on an opposing US party from a foreign country?

If Obama had launched an attack on George W. Bush from somewhere off US soil, the media - left and right - would have a fricking field day. George Bush? The one who honors dead American servicemen and women by not playing golf? It’s ok for him.

But the long and short of it is this: Talking with our enemies does not equal appeasing them.

Obama responds:

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

January 2009 can’t come soon enough.

UPDATE: Check out Joe Biden’s reaction:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement…

“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

“If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He was so toxic that he helped halt Obama’s momentum for much of April. The videos of him on YouTube were a dittohead’s dream-come-true, and put Obama on the defensive about his patriotism, his faith, and the sincerity of his message of change.

Ultimately, however, there is someone on the current domestic political scene even more toxic than Jeremiah Wright. Someone who is like Kryptonite to voters and would hamper the electoral chances of a 2008 Presidential candidate.

A recent Gallup poll…

finds that [John] McCain’s association with George W. Bush is more damaging than [Barack] Obama’s association with Wright.

Number of likely voters who say Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain: Thirty-eight percent.

Number of likely voters who say Wright makes them less likely to vote for Obama: Thirty-three percent.

George W. Bush. More politically toxic than an angry preacher spouting off a bunch of crazy stuff.

Yesterday was Mission Accomplished day. The day 5 years ago when President Bush triumphantly landed on an aircraft carrier and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over, and that the US had prevailed.

In recognition of that day, I invite you to read the words of disgraced and reviled neoconservative “thinker” Richard Perle:

Relax, Celebrate Victory
Richard Perle

From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq’s cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war’s critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes.

In full retreat, the war’s opponents have now taken up new defensive positions: “Yes, it was a military victory, but you haven’t found Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.” Or, “Yes, we destroyed Saddam’s regime, but now other dictators will try even harder to develop weapons of mass destruction to make sure they will not fall to some future American preemptive strike.”

We will find Saddam’s well-hidden chemical and biological weapons programs, but only when people who know come forward and tell us where to look. While Saddam was in power, even a hint about his concealment and deception was a death sentence, often by unimaginable torture against whole families. Saddam had four years to hide things. We have had a few weeks to find them. Patience — and some help from free Iraqis — will be rewarded.

Are you relaxing and enjoying it? This trillion-dollar exercise in futile nation-building that it’s become? This overthrow of a kleptocratic dictator with a sectarian civil war to show for it, while myriad other kleptocratic dictators remain in power, unimpeded?

In April 2008, 52 American servicepeople died in Iraq.

Yesterday, Jon Powers commemmorated the 5th anniversary of Bush’s ridiculous, premature speech by reflecting on what he was doing then. He was getting ready to go to Iraq. He writes:

There was no plan for securing. There was no plan for reconstructing.

Lieutenant Colonel Alan King recalls, in What Was Asked of Us, that as he rolled into the Baghdad Airport “they told me I had twenty-four hours to come up with a reconstruction plan for Baghdad.” You read that correctly. A Lieutenant Colonel on his way to Iraq, was given 24 hours to “come up” with a plan.

Unfortunately, the mission was far from accomplished. The mission was never defined. How can an army accomplish a mission when no one decides what the mission really is? This is failure of leadership on the largest scale imaginable.

We mark the fifth anniversary of that publicity stunt, with the following;

April marks the highest death total for US Troops in 2008.

Over 4061 American fatalities

Hundreds of thousand Iraq casualties

Over 300,000 troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with MAJOR PTSD

Estimates put the war cost at over $3 TRILLION.

NY-26th, the district where I am running for Congress, continues to pay over $1.9 Billion alone.

As a direct result of the war, oil and gas prices have skyrocketed, pinching families and pushing our economy toward recession.

These numbers are where we stand now. You know they will continue to grow.

Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them over the last five years. They struggled to do their jobs in a war with no strategy for success. They continue to serve with inappropriate equipment, insufficient training for the situation, and a lack of leadership coming from Washington. They have even returned for 3 or 4 tours of duty, only to suffer through more of the same.

Unfortunately, Washington continues to fail our troops by insisting there is a military solution to this all too political problem. They are failing to address the real issues; pressing religious, economic, and social solutions that could help stabilize the region and return a sense of pride and productivity to the lives of every day Iraqis.

In short, the mission needs to finally be defined.

Our new mission is to bring our troops home safely, securely, and soon…[addressing]

The tragedy of hundreds of thousands of veterans coming home to a broken Veterans Administration

Engage the millions of moderate middle-class Iraqi refugees who have lost their homes and are at risk to becoming recruited by radical elements

Reform our approach to national security so that our military is not the only tool we use to solve political problems

Bring accountability to the war profiteers and criminals who have fleeced our taxpayers and stolen from our troops

Begin a diplomatic surge to engage the entire region of interested parties to help solve centuries old ethnic resentments and struggle

During Vietnam, returning soldiers were not always treated as heroes who had done their duty. During Iraq, it is the government - not the people, but its government - that is mistreating our returning servicemen and women.

Mission Accomplished? Not by a long shot.

Dick Cheney sums up the Bush Administration’s attitude towards the American people’s opposition to just about anything they do:

Reminds me why the Imperial Cruiser in the opening shots of Family Guy’s “Blue Harvest” sported a Bush Cheney ‘04 sticker.

Bush lauds Ben Bernanke’s stewardship of the economy, essentially saying he’s doing a heckuva job. As the Fark submitter says, “uh oh”.

Bush rejected several proposals being offered in Congress, including the purchase of boarded-up homes by cities and states, changes in the bankruptcy code to allow mortgages to be discharged in bankruptcy, and extending federal loan guarantees to more homes once lenders have accepted their losses.

Markets need time to correct, he said. “Delaying that correction would only prolong the correction.“

The man is a genius.

Peggy Noonan in 2004:

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor…

…The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let’s savor that too.

Now, the allies the Bush administration so cavalierly dismissed as “Old Europe” are retrospectively justified and relieved that they didn’t send their kids to die, or put undue strain on their economies to participate in a pointless endeavor that backfired. The

[Bush] announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. “And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned.”

He did so well, the Dems re-took control of congress in 2006. Savor.

She savored Bush’s victory in 2004, even after Iraq had already become an al-Qaeda-ridden disaster of historic proportions.

Peggy Noonan in 2008:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.

Hell, I could have told you that at least eight years ago; well before ol’ Peggy was busy savoring another four years of the Worst. Presidency. Ever. Thanks, Peggy.

You’re all cordially invited to join the WNY Coalition for Progress at its third annual State of the Union Watch Party, to commence at 8pm on Monday, January 28, 2007 at Founding Fathers’ Pub, 75 Edward St., Buffalo , NY 14202. 716-855-8944.

Notable this year is that it will be George W. Bush’s final State of the Union address. *sighs deeply*.

A donation to defray the cost of food will be encouraged, but not required. Cash bar.

Yes, it could very well be a de facto BloggerCon - the first of 2008.

See Michael Calanan’s pictures from last year’s festivities here.