Kay Bailey Hutchison (R – Tx) KB was a cheerleader at the University of Texas. She has also been George W’s biggest cheerleader. This week she said (From Fort Worth Star- Telegram), “If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, I would not have voted to go into Iraq as we did,” said Hutchison, a Republican seeking a third term in Washington. “But I don’t think the president would have asked us to.”
John Warner (R – Va) From WaPo: The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday offered a stark assessment of the situation in Iraq after a trip there this week, saying that parts of the country have taken “steps backwards” and that the United States is at risk of losing the campaign to control an increasingly violent Baghdad.
Sen. John W. Warner (Va.) told reporters on Capitol Hill that the Iraqi government is having trouble making strides and is incapable of providing even basic human necessities to people in certain areas of the country. Though Warner praised U.S. efforts to keep Iraq under control, he was far less optimistic about the situation there than he had been over the past three years.
Richard Haass – From Time:
Iraq, said the speaker, is “a setback. You can’t sugar-coat that. We’ve reached a point where we’ve got to get real. This is not going to be a near-term success for American foreign policy. The Iraq situation’s not winnable in any meaningful sense of the word ‘winnable.’ So what the United States needs to do now is look for a way to limit the losses and costs.”
This wasn’t just any old armchair observer talking on Thursday. It was Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former member of the President’s foreign policy team. Haass worked for Ronald Reagan, for Bush’s father and, as the policy planning boss at State under Colin Powell during Bush’s first term. By virtue of his post at CFR, he is as close as you can come these days to the voice of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
So? What has happened since 2000? I just interviewed Stephen Freeman, author of Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Well it appears that there is overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. Election wasn’t stolen any one matter but instead in multiple different manners. This occurred not just in one state, Ohio, but several states. How many votes? Maybe as many as 9 million votes were stolen. If this is true, what have we done to improve the system since 2004? Really, what major changes have been put in place since the year 2000?
Fixing our election system should be a major priority of progressive websites like DailyKos, FireDogLake, Think Progress, Huffington Post and Crooks and Liars. If we don’t fix the crooked system then what’s the point of all this discussion? What’s the point in making campaign contributions and stuffing envelopes for your favorite candidate? If the election is going to be stolen, what’s the point?
Did you know that the company that was formed by the consortium of the television networks to produce accurate polling has now been disbanded? The television networks are not going to report exit polls anymore. At least this is what has been reported. The major networks have abdicated their responsibility. Someone needs to pick up the ball and run with it. Stephen Freeman and his colleagues are going to try to do exit polling but he’s going to need help. He’s going to need a sophisticated nationwide network. One that can be provided by national progressive bloggers.
It’s just my opinion. Maybe, I should move to Canada.
I haven’t read about the Tet offensive in Vietnam for a while. So, I went to Wikipedia to take a look.
The Tet Offensive (January 30, 1968 – June 8, 1969) was a series of operational offensives during the Vietnam War, coordinated between battalion strength elements of the National Liberation Front’s People’s Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF or Viet Cong) and divisional strength elements of the North Vietnam’s People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN), against South Vietnam’s Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), and United States military and other ARVN-allied forces. The operations are called the Tet Offensive as they were timed to begin on the night of January 30–31, 1968, Tết Nguyên Đán (the lunar new year day). The offensive began spectacularly during celebrations of the Lunar New Year, and sporadic operations associated with the offensive continued into 1969.
The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war. President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968. The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives. more
Wow, I would guess that Bush would not want to compare anything in Iraq to the Tet Offensive. Did he know what he was talking about? Why would he compare the increased fighting in Iraq to the turning point in the Vietnam war? The turning point that turned Americans against the war. Does he want to lose the American people? (Well, lose us even more.) Unfortunately, for the President, he doesn’t understand that the turning point has passed. The turning point in public opinion with regard to the Iraq War was probably last summer. Last summer in Crawford, Tx when Cindy Sheehan was baking in the Texas sun just waiting for an answer. Why did her son have to die? What did he die for? In spite of Sheehan having no media saavy, she commanded attention. Attention that could not get Swift-Boated away (although the Right did try and are still trying to smear Cindy). That was also the time when several revelations (no uranium from Niger, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the Downing Street memo, no adequate body armor for the troops, the destruction of Fallujah) helped sink the President. Of course, the ongoing fighting with increasing body counts does not help.