Posted by Mark Silva at 9:06 am CDT
If this is starting to sound like the Iranian hostage crisis, indeed Democratic congressional leaders are holding the president's war-spending bill at bay, with an insistence on timelines for troop withdrawals that the president vows to veto.
"Sixty-one days have passed since I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill to provide the funds our troops urgently need,'' the president said during his weekly radio address today, sounding a daily clock of discontent over his standoff with Congress.
But the Democrats aren't the only ones whom Bush is debating these days. One of his own campaign strategists – Matthew Dowd, who served as campaign pollster for the first Bush campaign and key strategist for the reelection campaign – is on the radio voicing his own discontent with Bush and the war in Iraq.
"We should admit that it’s a mess there and we need to get our soldiers home, and the loss of blood is not going to accomplish anything,'' Dowd said in an interview with National Public Radio that aired last night. The president has dismissed Dowd's "anguish'' over the war as the sentiment of someone whose own son faces possible deployment to Iraq.
"It's hard to say (it) has nothing to do with that,'' Dowd told NPR, "but there's much more involved in what I believe about decisions that have been made, especially related to Iraq, than have to do with the direct interest of my son.”
What follows are the radio-aired words of the president and one of the president's own (ex-)men:
This is the text of the president's radio address today:
"Good morning. This week, people around the world celebrate Passover and Easter. These holy days remind us of the presence of a loving God who delivers His people from oppression, and offers a love more powerful than death. We take joy in spending this special time with family and friends, and we give thanks for the many blessings in our lives.
"One of our greatest blessings as Americans is that we have brave citizens who step forward to defend us. Every man or woman who wears our Nation's uniform is a volunteer, a patriot who has made the noble decision to serve a cause larger than self. This weekend, many of our service men and women are celebrating the holidays far from home. They are separated from their families by great distances, but they are always close in our thoughts. And this Passover and Easter, I ask you to keep them in your prayers.
"Our men and women in uniform deserve the gratitude of every American. And from their elected leaders, they deserve something more: the funds, resources, and equipment they need to do their jobs.
"Sixty-one days have passed since I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill to provide the funds our troops urgently need. But instead of approving that vital funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 61 days working to pass legislation that would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field.
"In both the House and Senate, Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And now the process is on hold for two weeks, until the full Congress returns to session.
"I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in Iraq. They see the emergency war spending bill as a chance to make that statement. Yet for our men and women in uniform, this emergency war spending bill is not a political statement, it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives.
"When Congress does not fund our troops on the front lines, our military is forced to make cuts in other areas to cover the shortfall. Military leaders have warned Congress about this problem. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pete Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on training, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
I"f Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for depots where pivotal equipment is repaired, delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, and delaying the formation of new brigade combat teams. The bottom line is that Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
"The full Congress will not be back from spring vacation until the week of April 16th. That means the soonest the House and Senate could get a bill to my desk will be sometime late this month, after the adverse consequences for our troops and their families have already begun. For our troops, the clock is ticking. If the Democrats continue to insist on making a political statement, they should send me their bill as soon as possible. I will veto it, and then Congress can go to work on a good bill that gives our troops the funds they need, without strings and without further delay.
"We have our differences in Washington, D.C., but our troops should not be caught in the middle. All who serve in elected office have a solemn responsibility to provide for our men and women in uniform. We need to put partisan politics aside, and do our duty to those who defend us.
"Thank you for listening.''
And this is the interview with Matthew Dowd that National Public Radio's All Things Considered has aired:
"NPR's ROBERT SIEGEL: Matthew Dowd was the chief strategist for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. He was a Texas Democrat who had been impressed by Governor George Bush's talent for governing from the center, cooperating with Democrats. He switched parties and went to work for the Bush campaign. So the story in last Sunday's New York Times was big political news: Matthew Dowd had lost faith in George Bush and felt it was time to get out of Iraq. Mr. Dowd joins us now from Austin. Welcome to the program once again.
MATTHEW DOWD: Thank you. Glad to be here.
MR. SIEGEL: What was it that disenchanted you with President Bush?
MR. DOWD: It wasn't one thing. I mean, when we -- when I joined him in '99 and 2000, and did the reelect in 2004, my hope and sort of my aspiration was that we could take the same things that were done here in Texas, where bridging divides with the Democratic lieutenant governor and the Democratic speaker here, and working on behalf of the people of Texas. And as I looked at Washington and the polarization that existed in Washington, it was my hope and our hope that that would be done and could be done up there. And, you know, over time things happened. And, you know, when you add it all up, that consensus-building and bridging those divides and reaching across the aisle and trying to get things done just never happened.
MR. SIEGEL: When the president was asked about The New York Times story last week in a news conference this week, he said, "I respect Matthew. He was an integral part of my 2004 campaign." But then he said that you have a son in the Army who's awaiting deployment, and he said, "I understand his anguish over the war. I understand this is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is for a lot of other people in our country." Is he right about that?
MR. DOWD: Yeah, he's right about all the facts that he laid out. But my -- my conclusion on Iraq specifically, it's hard to say has nothing to do with that, but there's much more involved in what I believe about decisions that have been made, especially related to Iraq, than have to do with the direct interest of my son.
MR. SIEGEL: Yeah, there is, though, an inference that some drew from him saying it's an emotional issue for Matthew that it's not an intellectual dissent, that there's something more heartfelt or visceral at work here.
MR. DOWD: Well, it's interesting, I think all the best decisions we make are heartfelt. And so part of what's in my heart is -- is, obviously, my son. But it has much more to do with the whole panorama of the issues involved in Iraq than just one single thing about my son.
MR. SIEGEL: When I interviewed you in 2004, during both conventions in fact, we talked about Iraq. During that campaign, Iraq for most Democrats was viewed as a discrete, separable conflict from the war against al Qaeda, the war against terror. For Republicans it was THE central front in the global war on terror. You linked Saddam Hussein to the war on terror. In 2004, did you believe it sincerely, and do you believe it now?
MR. DOWD: Well, I always -- I've always tried to be one that whatever information I have and what I feel in my heart, I say it.
And so I think, like many Americans and like many leaders of both political parties, people that voted for the resolution, we all were under the sort of impression, with the information presented, that Saddam Hussein was involved in trying to, you know, build weapons of mass destruction and all those other things that could obviously impact the world on terror. We all -- everybody thought that -- the previous administration, this administration -- but it turns out that wasn't true. And --
MR. SIEGEL: But by 2004, that was very much in dispute, and people had raised questions about vague Czech intelligence reports of a meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and somebody else. It was in debate. And to what degree was this a policy belief of yours, or were you the good -- the good professional partisan and your job was to make the case for the Bush campaign?
MR. DOWD: Well, you're -- it's -- I think it's -- you have to say it's a little bit of both. I don't -- I didn't disbelieve at the time that the decisions that led up to that Iraq invasion were made up or were somehow nefarious, so I believe that the decisions that were reached at the time were the right ones at the time.
Again, as it turned out, that turned out not to be the case. So -- and it's -- also is, as I'm hired and I'm part of a campaign, that I don't agree with every single thing the president did, even back in 2000 and 2004, but I have to say it's a little bit of both. I believed what we knew at the time; even though as time went on, we learned differently, it's -- you know, it takes a bit for people to sort of go through this conversion process.
MR. SIEGEL: Well, part of that is breaking with what you said, as in effect saying, "I was wrong." But what would you say is right today? What should be the policy in Iraq?
MR. DOWD: In my view -- and I'm not a military person -- in my view, we should pick from between one of two policies. We should either bring our -- we should admit that it's a mess there and we need to get our soldiers home and the loss of blood is not going to accomplish anything; we should -- anymore -- we should either do that or we should do some wholesale change in the policy where we really -- the idea that we're going to have a surge of 20,000 or 25,000 or something -- if we really wanted to say we're going to really change what's going on there, it's going to take, you know, 100,000 or 200,000. The problem with that, I think, is that the American public just would not support that.
And so in my view, where the public is today, they want to begin -- they want us to begin withdrawal. And I think that 300 million Americans are smarter than a few people in Washington, and I trust the views of 300 million Americans more than a few people in Washington, D.C.
MR. SIEGEL: Just one other point I wanted to raise with you. It seems that President Bush, in his -- first in his commitment to defend Secretary Rumsfeld when there was a chorus of people from both parties and former generals suggesting that the secretary should go, and in his current treatment of Attorney General Gonzales's woes with the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys -- the president seems to be remarkably loyal to the people whom he has brought into government. And personal loyalty seems to figure a great deal in this. Did the president's relationship and his sense of loyalty figure in your calculus of how to go about publicly breaking with him?
MR. DOWD: Obviously it figured into it, the loyalty that he has and loyalty that we were, you know, all expected and some of us felt. Ultimately that is the thing that I had to struggle with most. And I finally decided that really in our hearts or really who we are is we're not supposed to be loyal to a person and we're not supposed to be loyal to a party; we're supposed to be loyal to what truth we believe in ourselves and where our heart leads us.
MR. SIEGEL: Well, Matthew Dowd, thank you very much for talking with us today.
MR. DOWD: So glad to be here. Thank you for having me. ''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Acuse el arbusto!
Ahora!
Posted by: Nacho Libre | April 7, 2007 9:33 AM
Mr. Dowd is a little late to the party, but better late than never.
Our soldiers and other brave Americans are in the middle of a CIVIL WAR and we are the referees.
We cannot make these people play nice with each, so it is time for us to leave.
That's not cutting and running. It's not defeatism (if there is such a word).
It is time for us to leave.
Posted by: Doug Zook | April 7, 2007 9:43 AM
Even if the reason for his change of heart on the war is due to his son, it makes a good statement. The few holdout believers in this war would change their tunes if it hit close to home.
It's very easy to go along with the rhetoric untill their famlies become involved.
What is even harder to grasp is that Cheney is still talking up the Al-queada link to Iraq pre-invasion theory. This man is so delusional that he goes on Rush Limpbags hateradio, says there was a definite link even though it is clear from their own intelligence reports that it is and never was the case. Still claiming that the democrats wish defeat. What democrats wish is that these bumbling idiots who used no forsight as to the possible consequences of their actions and mishandling of this war, have done nothing but made the enemy stronger and cost us a great deal in lives and treasure.
Posted by: bill r. | April 7, 2007 10:01 AM
The president has dismissed Dowd's "anguish'' over the war as the sentiment of someone whose own son faces possible deployment to Iraq. Hmm... maybe the Presidents lack of "anguish" is due to the fact that he personally would never fight a in a war for our country, or let one of his children fight for our country. This is something he has in common with most of the legislatiors that still support the war. Does the term "Chicken Hawk" ring a bell.
Posted by: Nick | April 7, 2007 10:08 AM
El Jefe's sixty-one days mantra is to laugh.
According to RollCall: “The Pentagon has said it does not need the money immediately” and supplemental appropriations bills have been enacted well after April 15 in previous years. In fact, last year President Bush signed the Iraq War supplemental appropriations bill on June 15th, and in each of the past two years under the Republican Congress, it has taken three to four months to pass an Iraq supplemental appropriations bill."
If only the Decider would stick to his real beef instead of trying to muddy up the waters with this April 15 deadline, he might be a little more believable. But not this Decider. Or no. It's his way or no way.
Remember the bad old days when Herman Franks elevated the art of kicking the dirt around home plate in the umpires' eyes? Replace Herman with George and the ump with, oh, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi and you've got a great photoshop!
Posted by: Figbash | April 7, 2007 10:36 AM
Bring them home!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | April 7, 2007 10:50 AM
Both houses of Congress sent the White House a bill at warp speed in comparison to the Republican dominated congresses of recent years. If the Pres vetoes it, how is it Congress' fault?
And why is funding for this war still separate from the overall budget? What 4 years into it, and we still have to do emergency appropriations? This is mismanagement, to say the least.
Posted by: athena | April 7, 2007 11:08 AM
Support or lack of support for the Iraq charade sure does make a difference when it gets personal. Only a tiny minority of members of Congress have close family ties to anyone serving in the military, since mostly the wealthy and powerful are elected to Congress. As we know, those people have lots of wonderful options for their children, who rarely choose the military. The military for many is one of a few miserable options for the disadvantaged. I know of several wealthy people who STILL strongly support the Iraq fiasco and most of Bush's near-criminal policies. Without exception, these wealthy people say NO WAY would they allow their of-age children to serve in the military. And, of course, none of those children want to, anyway. They're happy to let the less fortunate fight their wars.
Posted by: roger Hayden | April 7, 2007 11:11 AM
Bush should have asked them to include war spending in the budget if he really wanted to support the troops. Besides, if the Pentagon gets a little short, they can borrow the money from the useless ballistic missile defense program or delay the next generation of ships, submarines, and aircraft, or maybe recover the money that was paid for fraudulent charges by contractors in Iraq. Allowing us to get ripped off by profiteers is no way to support the troops.
Posted by: Tom O | April 7, 2007 11:56 AM
Kudos to you, Mr. Dowd, for speaking out publicly and loudly on this issue.
Though you share a huge part of the responsibility for working so hard to have bush (s)elected in 2000 and 2004, I am glad you have awakened to the realities of PNAC and the neocons agendas. Doesn't go down too well once you realize the truth, huh?!
Your only recourse to atone for your past behavior is to work 24/7 to have this illegal pResident impeached immediatley. It sounds like you are on the right path, but let us witness the vigor and ferver with which you helped put this maniac where he is today, into bringing him down.
Investigate. Indict. Impeach.
Turn them over to the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity.
Posted by: Big Shoulders | April 7, 2007 12:11 PM
If it took him this long to figure it out, he can't be too smart, but then what can you expect from a Bush Conservative.
Posted by: proudliberal | April 7, 2007 12:42 PM
Typical Bush approach. Answer a valid criticism with an ad hominem attack. You can lead a Bush to water, but you can't make him think.
Posted by: proudliberal | April 7, 2007 12:45 PM
The "surge" is doomed and most of our military people know it. Our Commander In Chief has failed. Our civilian leadership has failed, Our Senior General Officers have failed, yet none of these elements is ashamed or contrite. I guess they think they were victims of bad luck. In fact they all demonstrated their incompetence. We have paid for their shortcomings with 3,250 dead and 24,000 wounded Americans. Now these same incompetents want more time and more bodies to stuff in the grinder with no end in sight. Are we crazy?
Posted by: c. perry | April 7, 2007 2:51 PM
ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
In violation of the oath of office, which reads: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself.
This conduct includes the following:
Manipulating Intelligence and Lying To Justify War
In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that `the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy' as revealed in the `Downing Street Memo'. To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on `fixed' intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
In violation of his oath to `faithfully execute the office of President of the United States', George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.
This conduct includes the following:
Failure To Uphold Accountability
In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.
Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:
(a) RICHARD CHENEY- In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to `fix' their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
(b) CONDOLEEZZA RICE- In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.
By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.
Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial, and removal from office.
ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.
This conduct includes the following:
Illegal Domestic Spying
In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.
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 office.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | April 7, 2007 3:06 PM
Is Bush telling the truth? Would "terrorists follow us to America" if we left Iraq?
Nah, say intelligence, military and administration experts.
Heck, even the hyper-conservative Heritage Foundation says Bush is just peddling manure:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17038910.htm
Posted by: bb | April 7, 2007 3:15 PM
Cute little story about Tony Blair having to tell Bush to cool his jets when the Brits were captured by Iran.
Apparently, Bush figured it was time to really show the Iranians some US military hardware.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2051971,00.html
Sorry about that, Tribsters. I know how much you're spoiling for a third war for Bush to lose.
Posted by: bb | April 7, 2007 3:22 PM
Cheney mentioned the president had to go to a book club meeting...........just wondering if the club's monthly selections include Out of Iraq, a practical plan for withdrawal now by McGovern and Polk.
only 135 pages, should be easier reading than Camus.
Posted by: milt | April 7, 2007 3:47 PM
My apologies to the former congresswoman from GA for not citing her in my previous post. Mea Culpa.
Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | April 7, 2007 4:56 PM
Bush is a war criminal, traitor to his country, lying imbecile, coward, megalomaniac, antithesis of everything decent and worthy in a human and yet he is still our elected two term president. We have bigger things to worry about than his spats over war spending bills and who said what and when. Every day he is allowed to stay in the White House says volumes about this country. Oh well, I have to go now and get my lithium prescription filled so I can get back in time to watch American Idol.
Posted by: Keith Alcorn | April 7, 2007 5:22 PM
SWAMPERS: Certainly the two transcripts above
would be of value to readers/users, if THE
TRIBUNE install a PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION
option, no? Why is this soooo difficult?
Posted by: ABE | April 7, 2007 10:52 PM
Bush says, "When Congress does not fund our troops on the front lines.", he is just out and out misleading. The bill he vows to veto has all the funding needed and asked for. When he uses his veto pen, HE is the one not funding our troops. Does he really think that the American public is going to swallow that line? Guess he thinks he's the Decider, the Dictator, The King. Well, as each day passes, more and more thinking people realize what a failure he really is. Matthew Dowd should be mightily ashamed of himself for ever opting to be a Bush flunky. Good that he came out, but I do hope he has a problem sleeping at night. And..Big Shoulders, as far as the Hague goes, the Bushies opted out of the World Court on one of the first days in office. That in itself should have sent out a reg flag. My first reaction was - what the hell are they planning?
Posted by: Audrey | April 7, 2007 11:44 PM
Re: 'When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', can't you imagine the conversation below?
Dubyah - Uncle Dick, do you think we ought to get a court order to tap this line?
Uncle Dick - Naah!
See, they talked about it!
New word. Elsog. Saves time, stands for Lying Sack Of Garbage. Only two syllables, so you can use it as many times as necessary and still have time to do other things, as in, "Dubyah's an elsog".
Posted by: Philip Crosby | April 8, 2007 1:53 AM
But on the other hand, John McCain says it's getting safer in Baghdad if you have 100 bodyguards and helicopters flying overhead. Wow, did that guy blow his chances of becoming president with that crap. Impeachment is too good for this Bush crowd. Hopefully they get cancer. Quick, everyone send Cheney a microwave!
Posted by: Kevin Quail | April 8, 2007 5:42 AM
But on the other hand, John McCain says it's getting safer in Baghdad if you have 100 bodyguards and helicopters flying overhead. Wow, did that guy blow his chances of becoming president with that crap. Impeachment is too good for this Bush crowd. Hopefully they get cancer. Quick, everyone send Cheney a microwave!
Posted by: Kevin Quail | April 8, 2007 5:42 AM
"If this is starting to sound like the Iranian hostage crisis, indeed Democratic congressional leaders are holding the president's war-spending bill at bay, with an insistence on timelines for troop withdrawals that the president vows to veto."
- Mark Silva
Mark,
I don't understand your opening sentence. Did you mean to write, "This is starting to sound like the Iranian hostage crisis. Indeed, Democratic congressional leaders are holding the president's war-spending bill at bay, with an insistence on timelines for troop withdrawals that the president vows to veto."
If so, I am not sure what the point of your comparison is. As far as I know, the Iranians weren't asking for anything in 1979-80. They only wanted to punish the U.S. for having supported the Shah for all of those years.
Are you suggesting that the Democrats have no other purpose in upholding the president's spending request than to punish him?
Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | April 8, 2007 7:03 AM
"Democrats in Congress have spent the past 61 days working to pass legislation that would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field."
President Bush
This is hogwash when we consider that the Department of Defense is only one of several departments of government.
Under NO circumstances do we let each of these departments determine how much money they need to "do their jobs." THAT, dear reader, is the job our citizenry assigns to Congress.
Some will argue that THIS is a matter of life and death? But the same could be said for each Department that funds programs that prevent death here at home.
Further, the president's decision to continue this war without end means that, theoretically, this expenditure has no end.
Congress has a job to do. They have to determine whether a multi-billion dollar expenditure with no end in sight is likely to lead to direct benefits to our nation. By setting a deadline, Congress is letting the president, Haliburton, Parsons and Iraq know that this is not a bottomless pit of funding. If results are not forthcoming, the funding will cease.
Anyone who manages their own expense account realizes how sensible Congress' behavior is. Having been able to constantly seek handouts and loans from family and family friends, it is clear why the president does not understand Congress' behavior.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | April 8, 2007 7:17 AM
Jorge,
"This is Day 57 since...
"This is Day 61 since....." Congress got a war spending supplemental budget...
This is a refrain we'll be hearing for a while, I suspect, reminiscent of "This is Day 100 since Americans were held hostage,'' the daily drumbeat of the evening newscasts we heard during the hostage crisis (showing my age?). That's what I was referring to -- probably should have been more specific.
Posted by: Mark Silva | April 8, 2007 7:57 AM
Thanks to the surge we now have about 160,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. What is 5% of that, well it is 8000. Does anybody believe that there are 8000 from the richest 5% of American families?
Or how about 800, or 80,or even 8. They cry big tears to get more tax breaks, but the wealthy refuse to support or defend this nation.
Posted by: WDRussell | April 8, 2007 8:02 AM
If they're having trouble funding the war, tough.
They should implement a voluntary war tax for all citizens who still support the war to help pay for it.
If they're not going to enlist & fight, then at least let them put their money where their mouth is. Let them support the troops with their own dollars.
Posted by: Evanel L. | April 8, 2007 8:54 AM
Pope's Easter Sunday Mass:
"Nothing good is happening in Iraq"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/08/vatican.easter.ap/index.html
Posted by: Bill | April 8, 2007 9:11 AM
It's a shame the Tribune really has no interest in finding out the answers about Saddam's terror links, only chooses to parrot Carl Levin's version of events or the AP's "analysis" of what the DOD report said.
If they really wanted to look at Saddam's terror links they would begin by asking the HUNDREDS, yes HUNDREDS, of members of Saddam's regime caught working for al Qaeda since 2002 (http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/05/former_baathists_found_working/), when that cooperation began and they'd ask to see full interrogation logs of Saddam, Farouk Hijazi and all the other detainees who HAVE admitted links between the two, not just condensed, PC versions of what those detainees said. It's a shame how incurious these "newspeople", maybe it's because they just tell you what fits their hopes.
Posted by: www.regimeofterror.com | April 8, 2007 9:50 AM
It's no doubt easy to identify Baathists who found a reason to cooperate with Al Qaeda AFTER Saddam was taken out, and when the sectarian conflict in Iraq exploded.
Without knowing who was involved BEFORE 9/11/01, it's impossible to substantiate any cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bear in mind that Bush and Cheney's argument was that Saddam WAS INVOLVED in 9/11, and even Bush has disowned that claim. What happened in 2003 or later years is utterly irrelevant - Al Qaeda took the opportunity of Saddam's overthrow to take up positions in Iraq in Sunni territory, to agitate for their own ends.
BASED ON THAT, BUSH'S REMOVAL OF SADDAM, WITHOUT REGARD FOR WHAT FOLLOWED, WAS THE PROBLEM!
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070408&cat=international&st=internationald8ocn8780&src=ap
In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country _ a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.
Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.
-------------
Bin Laden DESPISED Saddam, and offered the Saudi rulers the option of raising an all-Islamic army to push Saddam out of Kuwait - CNN had a special last year including footage of the Saudis covering this period. Saddam would not, for a moment, have put up with Al Qaeda influence in Iraq, which could have jeopardized his own power.
Posted by: pb | April 8, 2007 8:02 PM
Zook,
I, and others, have said it before;
Pull back, let the factions slug it out, then deal with the 'winner'.
It would take 1 million US/UK troops to pacify Iraq.
Not gonna happen.
The killing has simply moved to other parts of Iraq. It's similar to that old Three Stooges bit where Curly (Bush) shoves one dresser drawer closed and another one jumps open and hits him in the chins.
Only difference is, Curly eventually figgers it out; Bush still hasn't.
***************
Happy Easter America. Another great egg hunt for all, I hope.
Christians;
Wanna run it by me again how that all ties in to Christ and the Resurrection?
Posted by: C.Morris | April 8, 2007 8:18 PM
To Kevin Quail and the rest of you left wing nuts,
How 'bout checking out Dennis Byrne today in the editorial section? A little balance , but you probably don't know what that means. Take off the blinders for once.
Posted by: Scott | April 9, 2007 6:02 PM
To Kevin Quail and the rest of you left wing nuts,
How 'bout checking out Dennis Byrne today in the editorial section? A little balance , but you probably don't know what that means. Take off the blinders for once.
Posted by: Scott | April 9, 2007 6:03 PM
Scott (and the rest of you right wingnuts),
Dennis Byrne has been writing pie in the sky positive artcles for four years. And so have all the other Connie columnists. Guess what. No matter what they write, the insurgents never read the articles and they keep killing American soldiers. Its not going to change now. So maybe you want to take off the blinders.
Posted by: snitramc | April 9, 2007 7:11 PM