President Bush asked Americans to pay tribute to veterans by pausing on Memorial Day for "a moment of remembrance."

Bush had several suggestions for how to honor the sacrifices of those who have fought for the United States — place a flag at a veteran's grave, go to a battlefield or say a prayer. He said the moment of remembrance would be marked Monday at 3 p.m. local time.

"At that moment, Major League Baseball games will pause, the National Memorial Day parade will halt, Amtrak trains will blow their whistles and buglers in military cemeteries will play taps," he said in his weekly radio address.

The president said that as people "fire up the grill" and mark the unofficial beginning of summer, they need to honor the sacrifices that make freedom possible.

"No words are adequate to console those who have lost a loved one serving our nation," Bush said. "We can only offer our prayers and join in their grief."

No, Mr. Bush, sir, I believe we can offer a heck of a lot more than “our prayers.” You could start by paying the living that you and your folly have so needlessly placed in harms’ way something close to what they deserve. I don’t expect you to go so far as to pay the troops as much as you dole out to your elite mercenaries at Blackwater and the like, but surely you could spare the extra half-point approved by the Congress in the recent Defense Authorization Bill—an increase that would bring the entire raise up to a whopping 3.9 percent.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, that tiny added increase in troop pay would mean spending an extra $324 million next year—or less than the cost of one day of war in Iraq. It is 0.2 percent of the $165 billion requested by the White House for continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To put it another way, that money amounts to roughly a quarter- less than four percent of what a recent pentagon audit found was paid by the Army to private contractors—and for much of what was purchased with that $8.2 billion, there is no record that anything was received.

Or, Mr. President, you could drop your opposition to the new GI Bill that just overwhelmingly passed both houses of Congress. That small expenditure would offer much deserved medical and education benefits to returning veterans.

While you’re at it, you could really fix the VA. You could de-privatize all the programs you farmed out to your cronies and political benefactors. You could clean up and repair the hospitals and clinics, you could expand mental health services, you could stop your minions from purposefully minimizing the number of PTSD diagnoses, and stop them from classifying those still hampered by mental or physical injuries as fit for combat so that they can be sent back into your meat grinder.

Or, I’ve got an even better idea still. You could start bringing the troops home—for once, for all, for good. You could admit your mistake and end the occupation that needlessly adds—each and every day—to the list of those that we must memorialize.

Do that, and I’ll make you a deal—I’ll not only forgive you your patronizing, fatuous, callous, insulting “moment of remembrance,” I’ll agree to let you go back to your golf game.

- - - - -
(cross-posted on Daily Kos and capitoilette)

"A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down." Asked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.): "Where do we go from here?"

In Washington, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are receiving less than enthusiastic responses for their testimonies to the Senate and House committees. Petraeus's testimony leaves little "wiggle-room" for withdrawal, experts contend.

Meanwhile, others are saying U.S. attention to Iraq is diverting attention from the larger threat in the "war on terror" — al Qaeda.

Poll results and expert testimony increasingly link problems with the failing U.S. economy to war efforts in Iraq. (Will the U.S. be able to manage a hundred years of military engagement in the region?)

Yet, all of the hoopla and the testimonies in the West seem to negate the problems that persist in Iraq–despite the U.S. invasion, despite the fall of Saddam, despite the surge.

Clashes in Sadr City have resulted in twenty deaths today.

Attacks inside the protected "Green Zone" are on the rise.

Moqtada al-Sadr is threatening to end his cease-fire with the U.S., though he decided to call off the "million man rally" through Baghdad today for fear of additional bloodshed.

A strict curfew was put into effect in Baghdad, marking the anniversary of Saddam's fall with heightened security and increased restrictions.

Five years after the "fall", what have we, the U.S., the people of Iraq, the world gained from the fall of Saddam?

This is an open thread. Share your thoughts below.

It doesn't have to be like that.

We deserve more from our leaders - more thought, more discussion, and more imagination. There are more than two ways to proceed with respect to Iraq. Instead of withdrawing no matter the consequences - and instead of staying forever - we can withdraw in a careful and responsible way.

Last week, ten challengers running for Congress presented such a plan. It was well researched, drew on the expertise of groups like the Iraq Study Group that preceded it, was endorsed by policy experts and military generals, and presented a comprehensive solution not only to withdraw responsibly from Iraq, but to prevent "future Iraqs" from every taking place.

Clearly, the idea is catching on.

A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq was released last week with ten challengers endorsing it. As of today, forty-two candidates have endorsed the Plan from districts and states all over the country - red, blue, and purple. If all these candidates get elected, almost 10% of Congress next year will have already endorsed the Plan.

It's not hard to understand why there's momentum behind this idea. Americans don't like being lied to by their leaders and they don't like the constrained thinking presented by false choices. Chellie Pingree from Maine puts it well:

I don't have any hesitation being a candidate and speaking out. I hear from Democrats who feel frustrated that their representatives aren't doing more to end the war, Republicans who are angry they didn't get the right information, and Independents who don't trust anyone anymore. There is a desire from people to know that those they elect will be different.

We are banding together to let our colleagues in Congress know that people are ready to end the war and they are anxious to hear what's in the Plan. There's a lot of momentum behind it.

Let me repeat that again: There's a lot of momentum behind it. 

With 66% of the country against the war, America has already decided it wants to leave Iraq. The question is not if, but how. People are ready to hear reasoned, responsible ideas for withdrawing from Iraq - ideas that concentrate not narrowly on military strategy but understand the political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic sides of this enormously complex issue. By running on such an idea, this growing list of candidates is showing us the way forward.

If we can elect them, they will have a mandate to show those in Congress that there is political will out there in America to end the war. They will have a mandate to stand up and not back down when tough votes come to the floor. They will have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what they were elected to do - and they will do it.

The momentum is there. Candidates are signing on. The conversation is changing.

Lend your support.

Those are the words of Republican presidential wannabe John McCain (Asshole-AZ) giving what he insisted was a “major” policy speech on Iraq, and he wanted all of us to hear those words over cable news. . . but the facts got in the way.

You see, while John W. McCain was busy talking—and not listening—Iraqis were busy killing each other with such a reenergized ferocity that MSNBC cut into the live feed of McCain’s speech to present breaking news on the rising violence in Basra. (Crooks and Liars has the clip.)

And this morning brings us more news that McCain’s version of success is on the march as Basra’s violence escalates and spreads to Kut and Baghdad. There is even a report that one of Iraq’s two main oil pipelines has been blown up near Basra.

Of course, our man in Baghdad, Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has things under control. He’s even given the Sadrists a 72-hour ultimatum.

How are things going? Well, NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston says, “Things are not going well.” She even tells us that members of Bush/McCain’s much-touted Iraqi security force—a force supposedly under the authority of al-Maliki—are stripping off their uniforms and switching sides, joining the Mahdi militias. (Sorry, link not yet up on NPR site.)

Now that’s what I call success! Well, no, I don’t—that’s what John W. McCain calls success. And he don’t care what I, or anybody, says.

Isn’t it nice to know that after two terms of fact-free, incurious, lie-a-minute leadership, we have a man that promises us the kind of continuity and seamless transition of power that today’s Iraqis can only dream about?

Is it Bush or McCain? It’s McMore of McSame.

- - - - -
(cross-posted on guy2k)

In other words, what the Bush Administration successfully branded as a “surge” proves to be exactly what I insisted it was over a year ago, an escalation.

Even though most of this escalation in forces will remain in Iraq through the end of Bush’s term, I will bet that most in the establishment media will continue to call it a “surge”—just as the same scribe corps continues to parrot and push the never true and constantly disproved myth that “the surge is working.”

Just to reiterate, because it seems that we all have to, the latest escalation has not worked. It certainly didn’t promote any kind of grand political reconciliation—its purported strategic goal—and even the claim that it decreased overall violence is extremely suspect.

After fourteen months of this tactic, the occasion of reaching 4,000 dead troops serves to underscore the escalation’s abject failure. Not only does that number promise to go ever higher for the rest of Bush’s reign, the last two weeks got us to this tragic milestone much faster than expected. The 25 killed in the last fortnight represents the highest death rate for a two-week period since September 2007 (which came at the end of the bloodiest summer of the war).

Iraqi deaths are also creeping back up, Sunni and Shiite militias appear to be growing restless, and the US still has no set plan for transitioning out of this occupation.

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both proposed more rapid US troop redeployments, but John W. McCain has a different idea. . . or, rather, he has the most un-different idea. To quote the Times: “The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has advocated following a policy close to that of President Bush’s.”

Four more years of an over-stretched military, mission drift, and continued escalation—overseen by a guy that doesn’t even seem to understand the conflict? Sounds like the Republicans are offering McMore of McSame.

- - - - -
For a different—as in better—way to deescalate the occupation, please check out A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq (this is my review, or click below to read about the full plan and who is supporting it).

- - - - -
(cross-posted on capitoilette and guy2k)

That fact is galling. It reduces five years of lies, death, destruction, protests, vigils, public dissent and public outrage to background noise, as easily dismissed as it is ignored. Frustration is appropriate. Despondency is understandable, but unacceptable.

This week at Take Back America, which concluded today, I had the pleasure of sitting in on a panel discussion between the Reverend Jesse Jackson, former assistant attorney general to LBJ and civil rights leader Roger Wilkins, and MLK historian Taylor Branch. All three men shared experiences from their dogged efforts in the Civil Rights Movement, which was ignored and repressed in equal measure. They offered encouraging words and sound advice from that most noble of 20th century American ventures.

Their message was clear; keep up the pressure on the government in the face of any and all failures. Let nothing sap your will, energy or determination when fighting the good fight. Some choice quotes:

Wilkins: "Oftentimes people are skeptical about how effective their protests are around the country, but even if the government pretends they're not listening, they are. They may not react, but it weighs on them."

"When you become silent, the government concludes that your silence as acquiescence, and you should never let that happen."

"Change will come, but only if Americans take seriously their citizenship in this country … people say the only thing certain is death and taxes. That's a lie. The only certain things are death, taxes, and change."

Jackson: "Don't ever underestimate the power of hope … JFK won the presidency by the margin of hope."

"Some have the idea that they must run from the word 'liberal,' but America is a liberal idea. The idea that every man's blood is royal, the idea that you can be born in Harlem and end up as the governor of New York [that's a liberal idea]."

"Independent minds are the source of conscience, change and idealism in the United States."

"A more mature America is expressing itself, and we will see the fruits of our battles."

"A civil rights leader met with President Roosevelt, and, after he was done telling Roosevelt the president the changes that needed to be made, the president said 'I've heard everything you said, I believe everything you said, now go out and make me do it.'"

"Vanity asks the question 'is it popular?', politics asks the question 'will it win?', conscience asks the question is it right?'" (attributed to MLK)

Branch: "The Civil Rights Movement redeemed the ideal of our nation."

While the 5th anniversary of the war is a somber and discouraging date, we should look at the optimistic view; the anti-war movement is strong and growing, and political engagement from the younger generation is soaring. A responsible end to this war is in sight. Cheers to those who've kept their chins up, and their voices heard.

I listened to your speech today and heard you praise the many "successes" the United States has had in Iraq. Just to make sure we're talking about the same war, I have a few questions:

Is this what you're calling success?

Is this what you're calling an economic necessity?

And what about the unspoken costs of the war? Overseas and at home?

Is this why we continue to invest in Iraq?

Is this why the U.S. is better than Saddam?

Is this why you criticized Saddam for attacking Iraq's neighbors?

Is this why we need to stay the course?

Or maybe this is why we need to stay the course?

Are these the "voices in Washington" whose desire to change the course in Iraq you consider defeatist?

And what about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the rest of the world this war on terror continues to alienate against U.S. interests?

The U.S. might be bigger, it might be stronger, it might have more military strength than the rest of the world combined, but that does not mean America is winning. Beating your chest and praising the might of the U.S. military, you sounded so confident, yet the numbers, stories, and "successes" don't seem to add up. What am I missing, Mr. President? It seems the more successes you praise, the more failures I find.

Might it be time to change our approach, change our rhetoric, change our black ops strategy, change our aid giving, change the way we "fight" for peace, stability, and democracy in the twenty first century?

I think so.

Ohhhhh Kayyyyyyyyyy. . . .

Well, five years and over one-half trillion dollars (and counting) later, what do we really have? This is just a sample.

Nearly 4,000 US troops killed in combat; over 29,000 wounded.
At least 145 deaths by suicide (thousands more have attempted suicide).
Over 500 amputees (not counting fingers and toes).
Over 7,500 with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).
An estimated 28% of troops that see combat return with PTSD.
Upwards of 300,000 Iraq veterans are expected to develop some sort of mental health problem requiring treatment.
Divorces, spousal abuse, alcoholism and drug abuse—all on the rise in the veteran population.

(sources here, here, here, and here)
Somewhere between 600,000 and 1.2 million Iraqi civilian dead.
One in five Iraqis are considered displaced.
Four-and-a-half million Iraqis are uprooted.
Two-and-a-half million are displaced inside Iraq.
Two million Iraqi refugees are in neighboring countries.
The number of Iraqis seeking asylum is at an all-time high.

(sources here, here, and here)
Over 70% of Iraqi women say they don’t have enough to feed their family.
Two-thirds say that violence against women has increased in the last five years.
Over three-quarters say that girls in their family are not allowed to attend school.
Only about a quarter of Iraqi women are optimistic about the future.

(source)

But things are getting better, right? Let’s take a look at some of the latest news:

The death toll from a suicide bombing near the Shrine of Imam Hussein has risen above 50.

An epidemiologist estimates that Iraq (which had roughly the same size population as the greater New York metropolitan area when the war began) has suffered the equivalent of six 9/11 attacks per month.

The Iraqi National Museum—the one looted after the fall of Baghdad—is still closed, and will remain closed after it is renovated because of continued security fears.

The latest in a long list of conferences designed to reconcile Iraq’s warring political factions has begun to unravel before it even begins.

Top US commander in Iraq, Gen. David Patreus, says that the Iraqis have not taken advantage of the “surge,” and are not making “sufficient progress” toward national reconciliation.

VP Dick Cheney is in Iraq crafting a deal to guarantee that the US military is committed in Iraq beyond the end of his administration. (Without Congressional approval, such a deal would of course be illegal, as in, impeachable.)

Cheney and Bush’s good friend, John W. McCain (Asshole-AZ), is also in Iraq, routinely confusing Sunni and Shiite factions in the region while trying to stoke the fires for war with Iran. . . and, of course, promote another 95 years of Iraqi occupation.

Something to look forward to. . . as if looking back on the last five years weren’t depressing enough.
- - - - -
(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)

I know what you’re thinking: another plan, another press event, another way to say nothing and do less. . . but in this case, you are quite possibly thinking wrong.

You might want to read the whole report (available as a pdf—see link on this page) and decide for yourself, but let me try to quickly explain why I think this plan might be different.

It understands that there is no “military solution” to the Iraq crisis. With this understanding, the plan does not tell us how to “win the war,” but instead lays out a path toward a rapid, responsible troop withdrawal coupled with a multilateral diplomatic effort that will end US military involvement in Iraq while attempting to rebuild US power of the non-lethal sort.

It puts humanitarian concerns front and center. By providing for humanitarian aid inside Iraq, as well as for the displaced Iraqis scattered worldwide, this plan makes it clear that it is not about washing our hands of the matter, or leaving the Iraqis to bloodily sort things out for themselves. It is a plan that respects the so-called “Pottery Barn rule” more than Colin Powell ever pretended to.

By acknowledging that the war was a mistake to begin with, it frees the people behind this plan to address a very important question: How can we prevent this type of fiasco from ever happening again?

It is in that last point that we find what makes this plan so refreshing—and so bold. For the authors of this plan understand that Bush’s Iraq War, at its inception, was not so much a geopolitical crisis as it was a US domestic crisis.

To that end, the Responsible Plan calls for measures that at first blush don’t necessarily seem to be about “Iraq.” Yes, it calls for a total renunciation of torture, but it also calls for the re-establishment of the constitutionally prescribed balance of power between the three branches of US government. It calls for the reinstatement of protections allotted under the Fourth Amendment, and for the restoration of Habeas rights. (That’s a lot of “re’s.”) The plan also specifically demands an end to presidential signing statements.

The Responsible Plan also deals with the fallout of Bush’s folly by addressing current recruiting shortfalls and the care of our military families—now, and long into the future—with a “GI Bill for Life.” Further, it exhibits an important degree of fiscal responsibility by advocating for the integration of Iraq expenditures into the normal budget process.

And there are a few additional proposals that I find truly remarkable, considering that this plan had to not only meet with the approval of strategists, policy wonks, and retired military professionals, but had to gain the endorsement of current candidates for Congress, as well.

This plan calls for three things that seem to fly directly in the face of traditional campaign fundraising:

Contractor “reform”:

The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.

Media independence:

The consolidation of our news media into the control of a relatively few corporate entities stifled a full and fair discussion and debate around Iraq. A more robust debate could be encouraged by expanding access to media.

And, last, but certainly not least, the plan acknowledges the link between the war in Iraq and our oil addiction, and calls for a domestic, non-oil solution:

[W]e are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons.

Responsible—and comprehensive. Or, perhaps I should say, responsible because it’s comprehensive.

And I should also mention one more rather remarkable component to this proposal: A roadmap for implementation. Dive into the plan, and you will find a host of bills already pending in Congress—complete with lists of co-sponsors—bills that could be debated and maybe even passed this very summer if the Democratic leadership had the inclination, resolve, and, I will add, political savvy. (Sure, much of this legislation would get vetoed by Bush, or bottlenecked in the Senate by obstructionist Republicans and Liebercrats, but by putting it up there and out there, Democrats would show the voters that they are trying to do the people’s bidding, and it would further tie Republican candidates to an unpopular president and his failed and costly war.)

Should, however, our current crop of elected representatives fail to get the job done, the Responsible Plan has a plan for that, too. This proposal rolled out with the endorsement of multiple Democratic congressional candidates—and it is actively calling on more to jump on board. (Campaign fundraising is also being organized around support for the Responsible Plan.)

These Democratic candidates now have something to run on—which is a fabulous way to get out ahead of the competition and frame the debate. I challenge any Republican to present such a comprehensive and wide-ranging plan. But, even better, the Democrats as a party now have something to offer America. Should the bulk of the party—and, indeed, its presidential standard-bearer—endorse this proposal, Democrats could not only claim to be the party of ideas, they could be the party of solutions.

Comprehensive, responsible solutions.

- - - - -
(cross-posted on capitoilette and Daily Kos)