Bush's Escalation Is Working-Not!

The Escalation is Working

by Devilstower   Thu Apr 26, 2007    DailyKos

Bombings are up.  US troop deaths are up.  Iraqi troop deaths are up.  Bush / McCain / Lieberman denials of reality are way up.

Clearly, we've escalated.

But what about those statistics that Bush keeps giving?  The ones in which "sectarian murders" have dropped?  Is there anything to it?  You're not going to confirm them with the Iraqi government.  

The Iraqi government has refused to provide the United Nations with civilian casualty figures for its latest report on the hardships facing Iraqis, the U.N. said Wednesday, but numbers from various ministries indicate that more than 5,500 people died in the Baghdad area alone in the first three months of this year.

Hold on, 5,500 dead in Baghdad alone in just three months?  That would be a huge increase.  How could we see an increase in deaths and a "decrease in murders?"  Well... Bush didn't hesitate to form a shadow CIA in the Defense Department. Perhaps he also formed a shadow Baghdad Police Department and determined that 5,000 of those deaths were not murders -- Iraqis have just become very accident prone.

Still, the Bush administration really has managed to pass along democracy to the Iraqis.  The Bush form of democracy.  That is, they've taught the Iraqis to feed their people lies, keep the truth hidden, and spew misinformation like a fountain.

At a news conference to unveil the United Nations' report, spokesman Said Arikat said no "official" reason had been given by the government for not issuing casualty figures. But Ivana Vuco, a U.N. human rights officer, said government officials had made it clear during discussions that they believed releasing high casualty numbers would make it harder for the government to quell unrest.

You see?  Iraqis won't know they're being slaughtered by the thousands without the official statistics to confirm what they can see out their window.  Of course, releasing the actual numbers might also make people realize how ridiculous Bush's talking point really is.  Don't worry.  When it comes to lying, Bush can always escalate.

Tags: Bush escalation:Iraq Baghdad

NY Post Blast Harry Reid On Troop Withdrawal Bill

The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war."

And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.      NYPost

   This is an interesting article from the Post as it is basically another slam on Harry Reid. I will say that the title of the article " Reid's Bloody Hands "  is an eye catcher. After reading this piece of trash, it becomes apparent that none of the writing is remotely true. Just another neocon piece of slime meant to stir up the GOP faithful because we all know that no one in their right minds would fall for this bullshit.

   No matter what the writer ( no name provided ) of this may say or think, the fact of the matter is that this is Bush's war. It is the Republican's war all the way around it! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld lied us into this war and even after this was discovered, none of the Republicans in the House or the Senate dared show even the slightest interest in taking Bush to task for it! This was has been constantly rubber-stamped by the 109th Congress and the Senate, so yes, it is Bush's war and the rest of the Republicans who went along with Bush. We can toss a few Democrats in there also!

That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region - if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he's dumber than he sounds - followed by:

* A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos.

* Most likely, a general war.

* And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb.

At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Their blood stands to be on his hands.

  Yes, there will be a general war after the U.S. troops are out. This happens when we leave a country after trashing it for a few years. The governments who supported us usually get spanked by other groups for aiding and abetting the U.S. forces and Iraq will be no different.

   We could stay for another decade or two but the result will be the same when we leave, bloodshed and chaos for awhile but these things tend to work themselves out without interference. Does the writer at the Post suggest that we keep our U.S. troops in Iraq until hell freezes over?

    So far as anyone having blood on their hands, that will not be Harry Reid, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat in Congress. That blood squarely belongs to the hands of Resident George W. Bush, Vice Resident Dick Cheney and every other Republican since 2003 if not earlier!

Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it.

Today.

   The writer at the New York Post needs to put a cork in it!

   Today!

 

Tags: New York Post Harry Reid Iraq Iran U.S. troops war funding Congress Bush