Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Neverending War

Democrats grant the occupation an additional four months.
In grudging concessions to President Bush, congressional Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops -- and shorn of billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending on extraneous domestic programs, officials said Monday.

However, the legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain sketchy, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between the president and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Unable to override the President's veto and unable to respond to ludicrous claims from the rightard enablers--like our military will run out of bullets unless chimpy gets his way--the Democrats capitulate to financing the occupation and terrorist recruitment and donation vehicle known as Iraq.

President Bush's occupation of Iraq is a terrorist multiplier. But it only gets worse.
This “second surge” of troops in Iraq, which is being executed by extending tours for brigades already there and by deploying more units, could boost the number of combat troops to as many as 98,000 (from 52,500) by the end of this year. When support troops are included, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 — the most ever — by the end of the year.

So when the funding runs out in September, and General Petraeus delivers his assessment on Iraq to the Congress, can their be any doubt what he will ask for?
Funny thing is, this "second surge" (and at what point does it qualify as an escalation?) does not enjoy the fanfare and muscular approach used by the empty codpiece-in-chief.
The little-noticed efforts to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq are being carried out without the fanfare that accompanied President Bush’s initial troop surge in January.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, the U.S. commander who led NATO troops into Bosnia in late 1995, asked to comment on the findings, said: “It doesn’t surprise me that they’re not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this.”

Clearly, this occupation and escalation has done little more than mire down the sons and daughters of America in a country that was not a threat and did not attack us. It has been a disaster of epic proportions, radically weakening our military and completely draining our treasury.
And as far as the one responsible for attacking us on 9/11, what has been the effect on him and his organization?
In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al Qaeda's efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan's withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from the tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda's core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.
emphasis added

Congress needs to end this war, because Bush never will. To paraphrase TRex, George Bush conducting a Global War On Terror, is like changing a dirty diaper with a molotov cocktail. He hasn't done anything about the shit, and now everything's on fire.


Anonymous said...

Congress needs to immediately pass a statement (across party lines) that only it can declare war. This must be done immediately.

Redstater said...

Here's a NEWSFLASH for you.
Hillary Clinton said in the debate last night that she would have troops in Iraq for several more years... at best.

Democrats are not really going to pull out of Iraq unless they can do it while Bush is still Prez and hang defeat on his head. If the war is still ongoing after the 2008 elections and a Democrat wins the whitehouse... THEY WiLL NOT pull troops out of the war and have defeat hung on their heads.
Not gonna happen...

You can take this one to the bank.