100 Years? 50 Years? The Price We Are Paying

The war in Afghanistan is now in its seventh year. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 have a name, al Qaida, and they came from Osama bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan. The Afghan government refused to turn over the terrorists and it made sense to go after this specific group for the specific action they had taken.

But Afghanistan was a winnable war that got put on the back burner so Bush and the neocons could give our nation a war we did not need. And now we don't quite have the resources to finish either war and we have a president and a Republican candidate who wish to turn both wars into political footballs instead of giving our nation a sensible exit strategy. John McCain and George W. Bush find it convenient to see terrorists everywhere. The term 'terrorist' is in danger of meaning whatever these two characters want it to mean.

John McCain has gone a step further by calling anybody who supposedly is a terrorist a member of al Qaida. It's gibberish of course (when McCain speaks of the 'League of Nations' and a '100 years of war,' we know he isn't the sharp man that he once was). The reality is that the neocons and right wing Republicans are still fighting the Vietnam War, the Cold War and, maybe for John McCain, the Korean War and World War II.

Soldiers are dying for the delusions of right wing Republicans. Soldiers are dying because many otherwise decent Americans have stopped paying attention to how often they have been lied to by George W. Bush and John McCain. The McCain/Bush wars are dragging our nation down. You can't spend $100 billion a year and keep letting our soldiers get killed because powerful people don't want to admit they made a horrible mistake.

Icasualties.org has been keeping track of the number of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time now. Their statistics go back to the beginning of the war and those statistics are grim. Our soldiers are doing their best to serve honorably but they have been misled by the Bush Administration and many members of Congress.

Fifty-Two Americans died in Iraq last month. That's lower than the number killed in April of last year; in fact, the deaths for last month are half of what they were a year ago. But Bush's war in Iraq—or the occupation as some now call it—has been going on for over five years. Last month was better than most months since we invaded Iraq. But there are no good months for the families of those who have been killed. And there are no good months for the Iraqis whether they are pro-American, anti-American or just want everybody to go home and leave them be.

Click on icasualties.org and look at the numbers. The numbers are painful to look at but they are nothing compared to the loss of losing a son or a husband or a father. But look at the numbers. We have the full numbers for sixty-two months. Forty-one of those months have been worse or right at 52 deaths. Forty-one months is almost three and a half years. Twenty-one of the sixty-two months have had fewer fatalities than we had in April. Twenty-one months is almost two years. Almost. By the time a new president sits in the White House, we will have been in Iraq almost six years with no end in sight. Wars are not supposed to go on this long.

Call it a war. Call it an occupation. Call it the Bush empire or colony project. Five years and there are still no honest answers from the White House. And John McCain promises more of the same. We have problems at home and the politicians aren't paying attention. We have problems abroad but we are so tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're getting nowhere. Bush and McCain have talked of attacking Iran. They have both lied about the reasons. They both have tried to repeat the false talking points that led us into war in Iraq in the first place. They lied. The war in Iraq was not necessary. More war is not good for America.

We need to change course. The American people have a choice. It's up to the American people to start thinking about the future. It's time to turn our backs on the Republican way of doing business and rediscover who we are as a people and as a democracy. It's time to bring our soldiers home, retrain them for the difficult years ahead and resume our real role as leaders of the free world and a people who want to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

John Edwards Gets Real on Foreign Policy

Psst, the Fox TV show '24,' is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with reality. Please pass this along, particularly to the Republican presidential candidates who seem fond of flapping their arms and beating their chests. Oh, one other thing. Pass along the fact that we had a very effective bipartisan foreign policy for fifty years and the professionals to go with it before George W. Bush showed up; in fact, it worked so well, that it warned President Bush before 9/11 that we were in danger of an attack from al Qaida. Bush did nothing and stayed on vacation in Crawford, Texas. Posturing is worthless if you don't know what you're doing.

It was pathetic listening to the Republican candidates shoot off their sound bites during their debate. They haven't learned a thing in six years. They think everything Bush is doing is great which shows how far the Republican Party has drifted from its tradition of pragmatism.

Here's a fact the Republican Party needs to get its arms around: Bush has lost over 3,000 Americans lives and spent over $500 billion to buy America the albatross we call Iraq. That albatross ain't doing nothing for us. And it certainly has nothing to do with the so-called 'war on terror,' whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11; it was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. It was led by Osama bin Laden. Al Qaida, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden are real, they are tangible, but 'terrorism' is an abstraction you can make anything out of it that you want; you can move the goal posts, you can name this group or that group terrorists depending all too often on politics. You can say dropping a bomb on a city is not terrorism but a much smaller bomb in a grocery store is terrorism. You can say these guys are freedom fighters while these guys are terrorists and they use exactly the same tactics. You can say this Iraqi group is bad and this Iraqi group is good depending on how much money is flowing and who says what. It is an wretched way to do foreign policy.

On The Huffington Post, foreign policy expert Lorelei Kelly talks about terrorism and the honest tack that John Edwards takes on the issue:

John Edwards is getting a track record for blazing the trail on national security. He was the only Democratic contender at the first debate to openly criticize the label "war on terror." His lonely stance was unusual and illustrates how fearful we've become as a nation as well as alienated from the fundamental principles of our own democracy. Military experts --many veterans among them-- have been broadcasting their dissatisfaction about this label since the war began. Terrorism is a tactic, not a long term strategy. And the Bush Administration has been getting a free ride on this moniker since the post 9/11 world began. But then, understanding the integrity and the substance of the military would explode the neo-conservative election strategy that revolves around distorted labels of strength and weakness, patriotism and "America hating." We will endure these talking points until a group of wise Republicans decide to take their party back.

The strongest country in the world shouldn't have to rely on politicians like Bush and Giuliani who like to grandstand and posture without having the smarts to come up with an effective foreign policy. Yes, we need a strong defense. No, we do not need to get into the business of regime changes that feel more like an attempt at over-bearing colonial rule. The only people who have benefited from Bush's reckless foreign policy are his Republican friends in the defense industry. That is not something to celebrate or brag about. It is something to investigate and prosecute.

Cheney Must Be Happy: Halliburton Up $43

Bush and Cheney's war in Iraq is a disaster that has done very little, if anything, for the United States. Back when the war started in 2003, I was posting on the AOL message boards and was treated like a traitor for pointing out any number of obvious contradictions. I was actually slow to oppose the war and was bothered by a number of people I respected who supported the war, but by February of 2003, I was against it. I despised any number of outright lies that were becoming increasingly obvious and being bandied about to justify the war and, at the same time, I was particularly bothered by how Afghanistan wasn't going as well as it should have been, partly because of the administration's obsession with Iraq but mainly because the administration didn't seem to take its job very seriously. Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan. That's where al Qaida was. I found it disturbing that the Bush administration didn't seem concerned about finishing the job in Afghanistan.

The issue of Iraq has now taken on a larger context and we now recognize that Bush's war was a strategic failure based on a poor understanding of foreign policy and the world. Yes, there was incompetence but the larger failure was the conception of grandiose scheme to remake the Middle East in ways that contradict who we are as a nation and in ways that have little to do with democracy. Bush's policy was riddled with hubris and ideology and nonsense.

In Truthout, Frank Rich of The New York Times can be found once again giving his perspective, this time four years after the start of Bush's folly in Iraq:

Tomorrow night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush's prime-time address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are congenitally short, it's an eternity. That's why a revisionist history of the White House's rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same "bad intelligence" before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion's aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. "If only I had known then what I know now ..." has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration's case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.

(snip)

In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal writes, "There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda members."

[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House's use of prewar intelligence, The Journal wrote, "Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war."]

(snip)

President Bush declares war from the Oval Office in a national address: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure."

Price of a share of Halliburton stock: $20.50

[Value of that Halliburton share on March 16, 2007, adjusted for a split in 2006: $64.12.]

That last one is my favorite, though Mr. Rich offers many other examples. No bid contracts indeed!

Too many Republicans in Congress, the White House and the media lie to our faces and then deny that they're lying to our faces. Our country, at minimum, needs a two-party system, but it's time to send the Republicans home until they start offering people with more integrity. Integrity or not, even the rubber stampers should be sent home for turning a blind eye to the most corrupt era in anyone's memory.

Wesley Clark Criticizes Bush's Iraq Policy

Of the Democrats being discussed for a run in 2008, only Al Gore and Wesley Clark have not declared and Gore keeps saying he won't. That makes Wesley Clark the last candidate if he decides to run. I suspect Clark is biding his time and if he doesn't see a good opportunity to jump all the way in, he may stay active on the issues, particularly on foreign policy.

Stephanie Veale of the Utica Observer-Dispatch has a story on Clark's recent speech at Colgate College:

The Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq is wrong because it's short on dialogue and diplomacy and heavy on violence, Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday night at Colgate University.

"You cannot defeat al Qaida with military force alone," Clark said, adding that invasions, bombings and shoot-outs create terrorist-sympathizers and worsen the problem.

(snip)

"The United States must talk with nations it disagrees with," he said.

Having an ideological vice president who talks like a John Bircher and a public relations president who plays to the base is not doing the United States much good. I see no sign, with the exception of Chuck Hagel, that any of the Republican presidential hopefuls have a serious foreign policy. Newt Gingrich has moved himself so far to the right that he openly advocates World War III; yes, Newt, that should improve our lives, build a better future and enrich your cronies in the defense industry.

I like Wesley Clark, but sometimes, for a presidential candidate, he's a bit low key and yet clearly he is well informed and thoughtful. I would welcome that in a vice president or a cabinet member of a Democratic administration. Clark understands how foreign policy is supposed to work.

Wesley Clark is also associated with a veterans group that has a website called, Stop Iran War. I can see where Bush's very dangerous Iran policy may be the reason Wesley is focusing more on foreign policy issues than running for president—it's a dangerous situation and somebody like Wesley Clark has to show the way to a bit of foreign policy reality. Here's part of Wesley Clark's statement on the site:

All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush’s saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.

Whatever the pace of Iran’s nuclear efforts, in the give and take of the Administration’s rhetoric and accusations, we are approaching the last moments to head off looming conflict.

(snip)

... Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. ...

Too bad the Bush adminisration ignores competent people like Wesley Clark. But Republicans in Congress can't ignore thousands of Americans who write to them objecting to Bush's slow drift towards war with Iran.

Let's hope Wesley Clark speaks up more.

Afghanistan and NATO

Afghanistan is a war that should have been done a long time ago. However, Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq put Afghanistan somewhat on the back burner for the better part of three years. The decision to bring in NATO was a good one but it's never certain what the outcome will be if someone like President Bush is involved. Afghanistan requires close watching.

I'm not sure I totally agree with him but American Pundit had a thoughtful post on Afghanistan that's worth passing along, particularly these two paragraphs:

Last summer NATO and Afghan government forces moved into the south and east of the country. For the first time in decades these provinces are coming under control of the central government. This is good news for the common folk and bad news for the Taliban and opium growers who thrive on lawlessness. Unsurprisingly, the level of violence in Afghanistan's eastern and western provinces ratcheted up last year in response.

The NATO commander during this period, British Gen. David Richards, did a fantastic job with the forces he had available. He understood the basic premise of counterinsurgency warfare: less is more. The fewer battles fought and the less damage and killing done, the better our relationship with the Afghan civilians who hold the power to either give shelter to the enemy or turn them over to us.

Something of the same sort may have to happen in Iraq. We need to get ourselves out of the civil war that has far too many factions and issues for us to resolve. One option is to remain in the country, outside the urban areas, and act only when it is clear what we need to do, while working hard on political settlements. We can also start drawing down while we pursue this option; in fact, drawing down would facilitate the option since it would make it clear to the Iraqis that they have to take control of their future.

The Unhappy Mr. Cheney

The Bush/Cheney war in Iraq has not gone well. And Cheney is a bit grumpy these days as his deceits and acts of incompetence are laid bare for everyone to see. But the fact remains that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have still not been held accountable in any significant manner despite the results of the elections in November. There is much still to do.

If you read nothing else today, read New York Times columnist Frank Rich in Truthout; it's the kind of column The New York Times would not have published four years ago when it might have done a great deal more good:

... From the start, the capital has belittled the Joseph and Valerie Wilson affair as "a tempest in a teapot," as David Broder of The Washington Post reiterated just five months ago. When "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great," Bob Woodward said in 2005. Or, as Robert Novak suggested in 2003 before he revealed Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. officer in his column, "weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger" are "little elitist issues that don't bother most of the people." Those issues may not trouble Mr. Novak, but they do loom large to other people, especially those who sent their kids off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent uranium.

Our troops have done the best job they can but it is never in the interest of the troops to send them into wars we do not need or to leave them in a war for political reasons, without an exit plan, to save the reputation of an incompetent administration. Iraq is now in a civil war. At the minimum, we need to stop pretending there is sufficient wisdom in the White House to figure out who to help in that war; we may need to keep troops nearby or on the borders to keep the war from spreading, but it's time to stop digging a hole and it's time to do the hard diplomatic work of arranging some kind of political solution. I'm not a pacificist but the people in Washington never bothered to understand who we're shooting at and why and what the consequences would be. This is not the kind of behavior one would expect from the leader of the free world. And it's unforgiveable that much of the media simply ignored the lies and incompetence for far too long.

One thing much of the media has never understood is that are many Cindy Sheehans out there trying to understand what happened to their loved ones; this is a strange war being run by a strange White House and while not everyone has the courage and strength of someone like Cindy Sheehan, there are many Americans who want answers, who need to understand why their loved ones were sent to a war based on lies. The last six years have been an historical embarrassment in our country; we need better people next time and they better be reasonably straight with the American people.

Senator Webb Gets It

Senator Webb's Democratic rebuttal to President Bush's speech was superb. Terrell of Alone on a Limb offers an excerpt from Webb's speech:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. ...

There's a weight to what Senator Webb is saying that I deeply appreciate. In firm but respectful language, Webb makes it clear that Bush has violated our nation's trust. Bush will be in office for another two years. Let's hope Bush does no further harm and that the next president is a considerable improvement.

By the way, I'm jealous that Terrell has figured out YouTube and has Senator Webb giving his speech. I solemnly swear I'll take the time to figure it out one of these days. I'm a writer but nobody told me I was going to have to learn multimedia as I get older!

Hillary Says No to Troop Surge in Iraq, Yes to Troop Surge in Afghanistan

Senator Hillary Clinton is on her way to Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's one story from the International Herald Tribune:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is headed to Iraq this weekend with two other lawmakers as the rest of Congress engages in a fierce debate over President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to salvage the U.S. effort there.

Clinton, Democrat of New York, who is considering running for president, is traveling with Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Democrat who had also considered the 2008 race but opted out, and Representative John McHugh, Republican of New York.

The three, who are all members of armed services committees, are to meet with top Iraqi officials and U.S. military commanders, and also travel to Afghanistan.

Here's more details from Glenn Thrush of Newsday:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend - and calling for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan even though she opposes a similar measure in Iraq.

Clinton's trip isn't surprising politically. As the top Democratic contender in 2008 who voted for the war - and hasn't recanted - Clinton needed to emphasize her foreign policy strengths: gravitas, affection for the troops and on-the-ground experience in a war zone.

On Wednesday, as President George W. Bush delivered his address on his plan for a 21,500-troop increases in Iraq, Clinton was about the only serious contender in either party to turn down an invitation to dissect the speech on TV.

Although many people perceive Hillary Clinton to be a liberal, most Democrats actually consider her politics over the last six years to be moderate and even sometimes moderate/conservative. Now political labels in 2008 are going to mean less than they have in the past simply because people are more concerned about leadership these days. But even Republican 2008 contenders are engaging the press more than Hillary. Senator Clinton's carefully timed statements with long bouts of silence on some issues are actually somewhat puzzling. Being a leader isn't simply about establishing foreign policy credentials and having long lunches with powerful people, it also means engaging and shaping the issues of the time.

But I welcome Senator Clinton's position on Afghanistan, the neglected war that should have been completed a long time ago. Perhaps when she gets back she'll discuss that some of the troop surge for Iraq depends on taking troops from Afghanistan which is really in no position to lose those troops.

Americans Oppose Bush's Iraq Policy

Bush's speech is a dud. And it becomes increasingly clear that Bush is 'exaggerating' the support that he has for his policy from the military and the Iraqi leadership. Cheney and Bush have become so isolated from the real world that they present the most serious leadership crisis we have had since Richard M. Nixon.
Two out of three Americans oppose Bush's plan; here's the story from CNN:

Two out of three Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday indicates.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq.

(snip)

The president argued that the increase in troop strength would the best chance to succeed in a war the U.S. cannot afford to lose.

Our president has been wrong about so many things so many times that it takes an enormous amount of arrogance for him to say at this late date that he knows what he's doing. It's important to note that the Iraqis don't want a troop surge from us. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush and Cheney are drunk on their own power. It can be argued that someone needs to take the car keys from Bush and Cheney until they sober up and can answer questions honestly and rationally. The sad truth about the speech that Bush gave on Wednesday night is that once again he has not been truthful with the American people.

John Edwards Opposes Troop Surge

John Edwards opposes the extension and escalation of Bush's failing war in Iraq. Here's the story from Joe C. on Edwards own blog:

Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about President Bush's expected announcement Wednesday that he will seek to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. In this statement, the senator calls on Congress to block funds for war escalation.

"George Bush's expected decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is a grave mistake.

"The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops. ...

I heard Edwards on Larry King last night and he reaffirmed his opposition to Bush's escalation. Edwards raised the issue that Bush needs to reestablish trust with the American people and his performance failed to do that last night. Edwards has emphasized the need for a political solution.

Last night, Senator Durbin (D-IL) said if there's any kind of surge we need, it's a diplomatic surge. I suspect Edwards would agree with that.

Wesley Clark Favors Diplomacy Over Troop Surge

Former General Wesley Clark has in article in The Washington Post (hat tip to Mahablog):

The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.

The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. ...

(snip)

... We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.

(snip)

The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region...

Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense. He and Joe Biden are the two Democrats with foreign policy expertise and it would be great if Wesley Clark joined the other Democrats in the 2008 race. Having Clark and Biden talk about foreign policy would sharpen the other candidates but, at the same time, they would show how little John McCain seems to understand these days, or at the very least, how disingenuous McCain has become. They would further show that the Republicans, as they currently are, have little to offer and have much rebuilding to do.

If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon.

Senator Biden Says He Intends to Run

When your poll numbers are down in the single digits and your name is Senator Biden, a good move is to keep semi-announcing your intention to run for president in incremental steps. One can produce a few headlines that way. Here's ABC News with the story:

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, one of the Democratic party's leading voices on foreign policy and a sharp critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war, on Tuesday said he intends to run for president in 2008.

"It is my intention to seek the nomination, and it's my intention sometime in the month of January to set up the appropriate mechanism to be able to raise money for that purpose," Biden said in a telephone news conference that centered on Iraq.

Now I'm poking a little fun at Joe Biden but there aren't many elected officials in Washington more knowledgeable about foreign policy than the senator. He knows what he's talking about which is in sharp contrast to the man in the Oval Office.

From CBS News, here's more that Senator Biden has to say; it looks like he's not going to put up with Bush's political games:

Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.

(snip)

Biden also said he believes Democrats' political vulnerability on Iraq is limited.

"I think we'll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent," he said.

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: "Mr. President, this is your war."

President Bush, after three years of floundering, and weeks after the voters sent a decisive message, is still dithering about what he's going to do. Democrats do not have the authority to run our foreign policy but they have the obligation to speak out on Bush's incompetence and to hold his administration accountable for a long series of failures. I hope Biden keeps it up.

Senator Dodd Says It's Time to Withdraw

No one should pretend at this late date that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush will get it right. Senator Dodd has an article in the Des Moines Register:

The time has come for the United States to begin the process of getting our troops out of Iraq.

In Baghdad last week, I joined in a conversation with a West Point graduate who is serving in Iraq. He said, "Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense."

After spending six days in the Middle East last week - which included visits with the top leaders in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel - it's hard not to come to the same conclusion: Our strategy in Iraq makes no sense. It never really did. It is as bad in person as it appears on television. There are literally dozens of sects, militias, gangs, warlords, foreign terrorists and others killing one another for dozens of reasons in Iraq today, and American troops are caught in the crossfire.

Our brave men and women have done everything asked of them with great courage and honor, but searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand. True peace and security in Iraq will not come at the end of an American gun. It will only happen to the degree that Iraq's leaders are willing to take responsibility for governing their own country and securing their own future.

Senator Dodd is making sense. We need to hear more from him and even if his odds of winning the Democratic nomination are slim, I hope he enters the race.

An increasing number of Americans, including Democrats, independents, the bipartisan members of the Iraq Study Group, the majority of voters in Novembers and even a growing number of Republicans say its time to draw down in Iraq. We've done as much as we're going to do without wasting more lives, money and years of effort for a minimal benefit that may never arrive. We're in Iraq because right wingers needed a cause to unify the Republican Party. That's a lousy way to begin the 21st century. We need to get out of Iraq before the Republican right wing gives us a war that could last generations.

War is the wrong way to bring democracy to the world. It is absurd and it was clear from the beginning that democracy at the point of a gun makes no sense. There are better ways, and we've been using those ways for sixty years with greater success. It's time to get back to doing what we do best: using all our resources within reason to improve international cooperation while reserving war as a last resort. For most Americans, Afghanistan met the criteria of a necessary war. Iraq did not. We're in danger of losing both war thanks to the incompetence of the current administration and the jingoism of their right wing supporters who have so clearly revealed to the world that they haven't a clue. The greatest nation in the world shouldn't let such ignorant and mean-spirited authoritarians tell the rest of the world what democracy and free speech means. Like I said, they haven't a clue. But the good news is that the real America is coming back.

From time to time, everyone needs to renew themselves and that's a good thing to do in this holiday season. Enjoy the holidays but remember our nation has serious work to do and we will celebrate many more holidays before we put the worst of these troubled times behind us. Renew old acquaintance and remember always the season where we hope and pray for Peace on Earth.

Hillary Clinton Opposes Possible Bush Plan

A promising sign that Hillary Clinton is beginning to move beyond the generalities that have characterized her possible presidential bid is her statement today that she opposes the troop 'surge' that apparently is being advocated by Bush as he attempts to mitigate his failures in Iraq; Senator Clinton says such a surge can only make sense as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with Iraq. As we all know, Bush does not do comprehensive plans. Here's the AP story in Truthout:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would not support a short-term increase in American troop presence in Iraq unless it was part of a more comprehensive plan to stabilize the country.

Clinton also offered the broadest indication yet that she was close to a decision on whether to enter the 2008 Democratic presidential field.

"I want to make sure the decision is right for me, my family, my party and my country," Clinton said during an interview on NBC's "The Today Show." ...

(snip)

"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys."

Clinton, who voted in 2002 to authorize military intervention in Iraq, said she was wary of increased military presence in the war-torn country.

"I'm not going to believe this president again," Clinton said.

Most of the world and most of the nation do not believe George W. Bush has much credibility these days. I'm glad to hear that Hillary has finally come around but she needs to work on rebuilding credibility in her own judgment. She stuck by Bush far longer than she should have. Instead of following the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls, she needs to show that she can lead the pack whether as a moderate, a liberal or according to some principled position in between. Her proposal to divide up Iraq's oil among all the people in Iraq might be a step in that direction.

To be honest, however, the oil proposal sounds like something Bill Clinton would come up with. An issue that Hillary needs to address is simply this: if something were to happen to Bill, could she come up with her own ideas? She needs to come up with ideas before too long that one would not necessarily associate with the former president. A realistic environmental and energy policy that doesn't pander to the usual special interest groups that are associated with big money would be a possibility.

Baker's Iraq Study Group Gives Bush an F

All ten members of the bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats led by former Secretary of State James Baker may have purged some political language and softened the blow for President Bush but the report card by the Iraq Study Group is a resounding F and the recommendations fly in the face of some of Bush's preferred policies. Bush has no choice but to clean up his act.

Yahoo has the Associated Press story:

President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday, and it warned of dwindling chances to change course before crisis turns to chaos with dire implications for terrorism, war in the Middle East and higher oil prices around the world.

(snip)

"The report is an acknowledgment that there will be no military solution in Iraq. It will require a political solution arrived at through sustained Iraqi and region-wide diplomacy and engagement," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats said the ball is in Bush's court.

"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," Pelosi said.

The Iraq panel's leaders said they tried to avoid politically charged language such as "victory," on the one hand or "civil war" on the other, but the words they chose were still powerful. The report says the current strategy is not working and lays out example after example where it has come up short.

As if to underscore that the conflict is hurtling out of control, the military reported that 10 American troops were killed Wednesday, adding to the toll of U.S. forces who have died since the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in early 2003.

Americans are tired of Bush's political games and right wing agenda. The hiring of Robert Gates may be a step in the right direction, but it is unlikely to be enough unless Bush brings more qualified, non-ideological help into his administration. The ISG report does not call for immediate withdrawal but make no mistake: withdrawal is in the wind, certainly before the end of 2008. America cannot wait two years for the repairs to begin to our foreign policy. Bush owes it to the American people to start listening to bipartisan advice.