Search This Blog

Monday, January 8

Power Surge

Bush dumped General George Casey because he didn't tell bush what bush wanted to hear. Casey was talking about the withdrawal of the troops. Bush says he wants "victory" although he has never defined "victory". I suspect that victory is a code word for prolonged profitable war.

In yesterday's NY Times, I read
BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 — The new American operational commander [Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno] in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another “two or three years” for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.
The story goes on to explain Odierno's plan for securing Baghdad vs. the way it was attempted previously. I don't know anything about war... so whatever. It sounds stupid to me though.

Over at, there is a disturbing story about those troops being sacrificed for bush's victory.
"...soldiers who survive attacks are often severely disabled for life.

Dr. Imbascini just returned from a four-month deployment to Germany, where he treated the worst of the U.S. war wounded. He said that an extremely high number of wounded soldiers are coming home with their arms or legs amputated. Imbascini said he amputated the genitals of one or two men every day.

"I walk into the operating room and the general surgeons are doing their work and there is the body of this Navy SEAL, which is a physical specimen to behold," he told IPS. "And his abdomen is open, they're exploring both intestines. He's missing both legs below the knee, one arm is blown off, he's got incisions on his thighs to relieve the pressure on the parts of the legs that are hopefully gonna survive and there's genital injuries, and you just want to cry."
In order for bush to have to prove that the 3000+ deaths and 150,000 devastating injuries were 'worth it,' just how many more deaths and injuries will occur and how exactly will anyone know when enough is enough?

Does "supporting our troops" mean that you have to support the war on Iraq until it is somehow proven that the war was worth it? Or does supporting our troops mean that you won't rest until stir people up enough to force the president to quit dreaming and get our troops out of a nightmarish situation?

If we "win" someday, will anyone be able to tell if it was worth it? Will the families of the fallen and the dismembered be able to sleep easier? I wonder.

from AlJazeera:
Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has said his country may "review" relations with countries which have criticised the manner of the execution of Saddam Hussein, saying the hanging was an internal matter.

Al-Maliki said: "We consider the execution of the dictator an internal affair that concerns only the Iraqi people."
Uh oh. The US was critical of the lynching, I mean, hanging. Will we be ordered out of there?

And the US is anxiously awaiting bubble boy's new Iraq war plan while Pelosi is warning him to be ready to justify every cent he expects to spend. Let's just see if her bite is as bad as her bark.

No comments: