Comments (96)

r€nato wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

I'll believe it when I see it.

September comes... then two or three months pass on debating Plan B... then the holidays come... then 2008... then our wise sages and pundits of Washington declare that it's only fair to let the next president decide how to handle Iraq.

Mission Accomplished.

Sha wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

Seems we've heard this all before. I was chuckling this AM when I read that the spineless DC Dems are putting forth legislation that gives W until September and now I read that the Repugs and MSM are talking the same stuff.

But wait. In NOVEMBER, 2006 the American voter spoke and said GET OUT NOW. Isn't it amazing that BushCo and friends (including DC Dems) have managed to string this thing out for another year. And then what? Another "new way forward"? Another two years needed to "get our troops home".

"See you in September...." a great song title but crap when it comes to Iraq.

Stephen Johnson wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

The real question is not what events on the ground look like in September. Or benchmarks. All goals and benchmarks should revolve around getting out of Iraq. That does not seem to be a goal of this admin. Once the US military leaves there will be no one to enforce the contracts with the US oil companies. Iraq can then find new companies that will pay better. THIS IS THE REASON BUSH DOES NOT WANT TO LEAVE. Arguing other goals and events is a complete waste of time. They do not want to leave. The oil is worth trillions of dollars. Why leave? The CEOs of these companies do not have sons and daughters in the conflict dying. Comments?

bajsa wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

More bullshit. They have been saying this stuff for months and years. Come September it will be "by the end of the year", and so on.

Bring 'em home.

Punchy wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

Paul, the report's already written. Trust me. Maybe I'm clairvoyant, maybe I'm the world's biggest cynic. But I can already see the report, and it says yes, there's been "real progress". There's hope that Americas will see "real change" in the Iraqi government "in the next six months". It'll conclude that the "surge must continue, however", that "timetables for withdrawl are damaging to this progress being witnessed", and "things may get worse before they get better".

This September report will be the most disingenuous, dishonest thing this Admin has ever produced (and that's saying a lot), but the media will eat it up. And we'll locked in for another 6 months. Bank on it.

scott wrote on May 8, 2007 9:16 AM:

who was it that coined the term, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"?

As far as any type of meaningful withdrawal/redeployment, I'll believe it when I see it. We haven't been building huge concrete military bases for nothing. The plan has always been to occupy the country until at least the point when a "stable" (pro-western) gov't can enforce the production sharing agreements for the major oil companies. And after that, use the new military base(s) to keep things humming along.

So, as long as our country is ruled by oil & gas men, don't expect any big changes.

za wrote on May 8, 2007 9:19 AM:

"any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions."

Good luck with that, General, seeing as the Iraqi government is going on a break for the entire months of July and August.

Seems to me we should just make the deadline the end of June, because there ain't NOTHING good happening thereafter.

Jeff (no, the other one) wrote on May 8, 2007 9:19 AM:

code word: idea

"Hey! here's an idea! let's build a time machine! THAT oughta work! then we can keep replaying the same idiotic mistakes over and over again!"

Heartbreaking. Troops being maimed and killed; Iraqis suffering and dying. And our Congress just keeps diggin' for that PONY!

Stephen Johnson wrote on May 8, 2007 9:20 AM:

Another point. If things are not going well in September they will not have all the troops out by October. it will take a long time. But you have to first start to bring people home. Redeploy inside the country. This cuts American losses and gives the Iraqis a chance to handle the problem themselves.

r€nato wrote on May 8, 2007 9:20 AM:

Wake me when September ends.

bobo wrote on May 8, 2007 9:22 AM:

The worst part is the dems doing a "wait and see". Are they kidding? What a sham the whole two party system is. Just like in France, the left is nothing more than the new right.

steve duncan wrote on May 8, 2007 9:24 AM:

Of course should anyone admit Plan "B" need instituted there will be funds required to do it. Bush is not leaving Iraq during his term. Failure, retreat and defeat must be pinned on the next President. With the odds growing that person may be a Democrat it is even more important to stay through January, 2009. Vietnam redux. The dirty fucking hippies bailed just as victory was within our grasp. And if the next President is a Republican? Hmmm, there's always Plan "C", or "D", maybe "E", then............

nofltwlt wrote on May 8, 2007 9:26 AM:

The story is the same.

Bush and the neocons have politicized intelligence so no matter what Petraeus says it must be taken with a teaspoon (truck load) of salt.

Bush and the neocons have ruined everything. As a result we cannot trust anything they say or do.

Impeach Bush and Cheney which will strip all of the veneer they have created. Then the oversight committees can speed their deliberations and we can begin to restore democracy and common goals to government.

bobo wrote on May 8, 2007 9:27 AM:

"This cuts American losses and gives the Iraqis a chance to handle the problem themselves."

There really isn't a problem per say with the Iraqis. They just need to have their civil war. We shuld leave and let them have it. In the mean time, we can re-group and get our troops ready for WWIII.

bwindrip wrote on May 8, 2007 9:28 AM:

Posted by: Stephen Johnson
Date: May 8, 2007 09:16 AM

I think you are spot-on with your assessment.

Once the big bases are punched out, and the US-backed version of the Iraq hydrocarbon law is passed, and the big western petro players get the production sharing agreements they want, then the troops can be redeployed.

The thing is, how many will have their status changed from "combat" to "support", and be left there to guard the petro infrastructure?

the truth will out wrote on May 8, 2007 9:29 AM:

What about the effect of 15 month deployments on military families? Is there a kind of ticking time bomb set to go off within the military family networks, taking aim at their repub representatives?

Think about it. The adults may have had a lot of the koolaid - but the kids are not as easy to control. And when teenagers start acting out or little kids are having problems due to parental absences, this may sway a lot of minds. Or when the mental health of troops suffers hugely and families begin to pay a bigger and bigger price.

September may tell a lot - about a lot of things. The ground is shifting right under the feet of those who think they are in control.

tom wrote on May 8, 2007 9:33 AM:

In January (90 days ago), Boner said 60-90 days would tell. I guess the MSM will keep handing out Friedman Units until January 2009.

bwindrip wrote on May 8, 2007 9:33 AM:

Then our brave commander in chief, having run out the clock, leaves the whole mess to the next sucker, retires to Argentina with a pocket full of oily cash, and quietly drinks himself into a coma.

Official A wrote on May 8, 2007 9:34 AM:

It drives me crazy when I see comments like Coleman's. It is mindnumbingly hypocritical to pretend that the Iraqis want us there and that we're giving them one last chance to get their act together. We destabilized Iraq and destroyed its infrastructure for no good reason, and now we're going to take our ball and go home? I am all in favor of immediate withdrawal, but let's skip the "naughty Iraqis" pretext. In a just world, we would owe them reparations.

T2 wrote on May 8, 2007 9:37 AM:

Again, this "wait until September" meme is just another stalling tactic, and a well-worn one at that. I think the only way we leave Iraq, during the Bush years and probably after, is when the Iraqis kick us out by force. Which they can. Whenever they want.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 9:37 AM:

Support the Troops --> Impeach the Commander-in-Chief.

The only way to get the troops out of that fiasco is to get Bush out of office, along with his thugs. And short of the election, he must be impeached.

I think that the Dems are working towards that end with the great help provided by TPM and others providing much need ammunition.

Keep up the great work here!! The outcome of the USA scandal (which should probably be changed to the 'DOJ scandal' at this point) will affect the ability to impeach.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 8, 2007 9:39 AM:

First, the assumption is that there will be a viable "Iraqi Government" come September. That premise appears to be perhaps a bit overly hopeful.

Meanwhile, we best be hoping that California does not experience "the big one", or Yellowstone doesn't have a major volcanic eruption, or a major city is not attacked by terrorist deployed chemical or bio weapons, or, say....Kansas is hit by tornadoes........

Twister aid hampered by Iraq commitment

08 may 07

WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush has vowed to deliver federal aid to rebuild a tornado-ravaged town in Kansas, but relief efforts are likely to be hampered because much of the equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is now in Iraq.

continues at......

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,21690376,00.html

Henk wrote on May 8, 2007 9:41 AM:

...and how do we clasify those that die between now and September?

To my Senator Norm: you say "[we've] got to see real action on the part of Iraqis..."
I see a lot of action by the Iraqis right now. Unfortunately all that action is dirrected against us. I think you'll need to be a little more specific in your talking points.

mayan wrote on May 8, 2007 9:45 AM:

Is this early September or late September? I have to schedule.

litigatormom wrote on May 8, 2007 9:50 AM:

A week ago Tony Snowjob was asked why the public should believe the latest government assurances about progress in Iraq, and here is part of what Snowjob said:

"I know that the Pentagon is going to start posting some stuff on "YouTube." It's important to make sure that people are able to draw full judgments. And I think when they see that the thing that they most want, which is a competent military pursuing a noble mission, enjoying some success, doing it at personal hazard, and doing it in a way that is consistent with American principles, they're going to say, okay, this is what we want."

Yes, you read that right. The DoD is going to start posting good news videos on YouTube, and then the American people are going to say "okay, this is what we want."

I think they'd do better with videos of mentos and coke, but whatever.

Code: pain. Yes, indeed.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 8, 2007 9:50 AM:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003697814_guard08.html

""Fifty percent of our trucks are gone. Our front loaders are gone. We are missing Humvees that move people," Sebelius told NBC's "Today" show. "We can't borrow them from other states because their equipment is gone. It's a huge issue for states across the country to respond to disasters like this.""

"That problem is likely to worsen in the event of a major hurricane, which would affect a much larger area than a tornado. Guard units and government agencies have been warning of the problem for months."

"Most of the units in the Army and Air National Guard are under-equipped for the jobs and the missions that they have to perform" domestically, Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard bureau, told Congress last month. "Can we do the job? Yes, we can. But the lack of equipment [means it takes] longer to do that job, and lost time translates into lost lives, and those lost lives are American lives."

"A Government Accountability Office report in January found that of 300 types of equipment needed in natural disasters, the Guard had fewer in all categories than it did in 2001, before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

"Some of the equipment is unavailable for domestic disasters, the GAO found, including radios and dump trucks. Only 2 percent of the diesel generators needed are available, the study found."

RandyR wrote on May 8, 2007 9:51 AM:

The troops arn't going to leave until the Iraqi Oil Theft Law is passed (Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law). Anyone who thinks that the Big Oil Presidency isn't in Iraq to steal the oil is dreaming. Why would this jerk care about Iraqi's when he doesn't seem to care about Americans. This is the most currupt administration in history, you don't think he would start a war to steal oil? Well guess again, the Hydrocarbon Law was written before Iraq had a Parliment, by an American company Bearing Point.

Security code: wrong-----wrong, wrong, wrong

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 9:53 AM:

Isn't the Iraqi government on vacation for the next two months? Sooooo. How will they get their act together two short months? THEY WON'T.

drp wrote on May 8, 2007 9:53 AM:

Is that the beginning of September or the end of September? They seem to be saying "by September", which tells me the beginning of the month. And who gets to decide if progress has been made or not? And how much "progress" is good enough? Still too much wiggle-room in there.

gjdodger wrote on May 8, 2007 9:53 AM:

It's just another Friedman unit. But I don't think the Congressional Republicans will go public with their eventual, real deadline. They will privately advise the White House that, by such-and-such a date, if troop withdrawal has not begun, they will count votes and give the Democrats just enough support to be able to override Presidential vetoes on Iraq funding. They'll try to time it so they can trumpet America's "victory" during the '08 elections.

Matty wrote on May 8, 2007 9:55 AM:

I like how whatever changes to possibly implement in November is being called "Plan B". By my count it would be Plan D:

* Plan A: "Shock and Awe," then a miracle occurs
* Plan B: Stay the course
* Plan C: Surge (=Plan B but with more casualties)
* Plan D: ???

Let's not forget the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Remember that? How are we doing on that little roadmap?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 8, 2007 9:56 AM:

Stephen Johnson@May 8, 2007 09:16 AM

You are correct. It is not about progress on the group or on the political front. It is about oil, period.

Michael Schwartz posted a very good analysis today at
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51572/

T. Atkinson wrote on May 8, 2007 9:58 AM:

Oh, goody! This means I can have a guilt-free summer filled with hot dogs and beer and sandy beaches and whatnot! Huzzah!

And then, when I am shopping for back to school supplies for my wee tots, I guess I can add to the list: "Buy some balls for Democrats."

I guess I can somewhat appreciate the fact that the Democrats in Congress can't dictate beyond that which they can pass, and there are Blue Dogs entrenched and all that, and that control is more narrow than some people think, but for the love of pie, it's not like a 30 seat takeover of the House and a seven-seat gain in the Senate wasn't a mandate.

We keep hearing about all these Friedman's and, baby, all I want is one Fulbright.

phil james wrote on May 8, 2007 9:58 AM:

The Washington Post has proven to be a steadfast enabler of the Bush Administration. It's purported front page news has now become little more than thinly veiled editorial fodder. Bush, Rove and Cheney meanwhile are chortling in the White House basement about their defiance and endless frustration of the Congress and the voters. The White House has no intention of getting out of Iraq under any circumstances..never had. The myth of leaving Iraq...the "as the Iraqis stand up we will stand down" myth was forced on Bush but holds about as much sway with him as the notion of breaking our dependency on Middle Eastern oil...which come to think of it is the same issue. The mission to extricate will rest with the Democrats in 2009. In the meantime our nation will continue on this hapless road to "non-defeat".

SteveW wrote on May 8, 2007 9:59 AM:

Last January when this "surge" was outlined by the president, we were told by the administration, Republicans, and Democrats we'd know within "weeks, not months" whether the surge was working. In fact, we were told it would be clear as day whether all was going well in Iraq no later than March...then April...then June...and now...September?!

Now, watch as September approaches and they'll tell us all, "we'll know for sure whether we've got our arms around this by April 2008"....do you see where we're headed with all of these ever moving non-binding deadlines? January, 2009!

Well, I don't think any of us here at TPM or elsewhere for that matter, believed we'd have to wait until...what...September or (notice how the Reeps have already started to move the cheese on Sunday saying "fall"/October.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll be out of there long after Bush leaves office.

DanF wrote on May 8, 2007 9:59 AM:

Nothing but weasel words:

-- Gen. David H. Petraeus has said that by September "he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions."

He'll answer: "Yes, its having an impact."

-- House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH): "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Plan B? Plan B is a reworked version of Plan A that keeps us there longer.

-- Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): "There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis.... I think everybody knows that, I really do."

Or else what? They never say, do they. Until they say, "We will withdraw in September," I'm not buying it.

Code word: "mark" as in "Mark my word."

Paul (NYC) wrote on May 8, 2007 10:00 AM:

My disgust at politicians apparently has not peaked because it just went up one more notch. The idea that, perhaps, 300+ more military personel and untold number of Iraqis have to die before these alleged statesmen can do anything is completely and utterly sickening. Somewhere out there are family members of the walking dead in Iraq - I hope they realize that their government doesn't care about them at all.

Pissed Off American wrote on May 8, 2007 10:04 AM:

The best window I have ever seen into the motives behind the invasion of Iraq, and when it began to seriously derail, was Naomi Klien's piece, "Bagdad Year Zero", written for Harpers.

Read it at...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

nickdanger wrote on May 8, 2007 10:05 AM:

It's all about the oil. Always has been, always will be. Pity the American Empire was so short lived.
(security code.. sail.. as in sail away)

EdNSted wrote on May 8, 2007 10:06 AM:

The Republicans gathered around the bus and looked solemnly at the flat tire. After much deliberation and careful consideration, they all agreed that the very best possible course of action was to wait for 3 more months. Then, if the tire had shown no signs of getting less flat, they would decide if some other course of action was required...

Razor wrote on May 8, 2007 10:06 AM:

What's the phrase I'm looking for? The one the Bush administration's DOJ so recently provided for how to handle 'expectations'.

Ah yes,

"Let's GUM this to death..."

Pitiful.
Codeword 'same'... how apropos'

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 8, 2007 10:07 AM:

Do you think the name of the month makes any difference????
Leave means leave in most languages.
When you kick a drunk out of a bar you say"leave".Same meaning here,leave.
Not "let me have a few more shots and then see what it looks like..... yeah and then I'll even let you help me decide but need them shots first bfore I leave to help me make it............ to the next time when......we may have to..........before then.......and you said but........that's the way............so when you decide I should leave let me know and I'll be waiting for that then..........it's your decision ya know ...........so I'm gonna wait here and let you finnish deciding what .............and then we can discuss which way I should leave I mean what direction to take"

DING DING DING DING!! Times Up! You are out-a-here

Neal wrote on May 8, 2007 10:09 AM:

(quote)Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's top Sunni official has set a deadline of next week for pulling his entire bloc out of the government -- a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. He also said he turned down an offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help. (end quote)

Add to this a 2 month summer vacation for the Iraqi parliament. Where do you think the political process in Iraq will be at the end of the summer? Will it even matter at that time if US forces totally subdued the central provinces? Who do you turn it over to? Dream on if you think that September means anything other than another month stuck to the tar baby.

phil james wrote on May 8, 2007 10:09 AM:

Official A says:
In a just world, we would owe them reparations.

If and when we do leave, our exit will not signal the end of our commitment. We American taxpayers will be paying in dollars for the damage we've done for at least a generation. We will almost certainly continue to post troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. But on the bright side, corporate sectors like Big Oil and Halliburton Dubai will continue to reap mind-numbing profits. Would our great nation have it any other way?

kentuck wrote on May 8, 2007 10:10 AM:

September is the month they get serious about their decision. However, April 2008 will be the cruelest month. Most Republicans believe they can support this fiasco up to 6 months from the election before being forced to admit that the troops need to come home. It's a cynical move by these politicians because they don't give a second thought about how many troops will die between now and then..

Organic George wrote on May 8, 2007 10:10 AM:

Actually this will provide the Dems with an opportunity to define success. That is the Dems should lay out the specific markers for what constitutes a passing mark for the military and political achievements.

If we leave the definition of success to Bush, then if the sun coming up in the east will suffice.

Has the casualty rate of US soldiers has gone down to 2005 levels, total civilian casualty dropped dramatically, have the Iraqis made a revenue sharing a reality, etc.

Define success in the supplemental, then challenge Bush to sign the bill.

Tom Degan wrote on May 8, 2007 10:11 AM:

Ask yourself this question: do you think for one minute that Bush, Cheney and the bloviating neo-con gas bags would have invaded that country had its main export been galvanized bicycle clamps? Are you naive enough to think that it was all about "bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people"? Are you so out of touch with reality that you believe that an administration that stole two elections in its own country gives a flying fuck about "freedom and democracy" in Iraq or or anywhere else for that matter?

my too sense wrote on May 8, 2007 10:13 AM:

And as we know from the political guru's that currently run the WH...you don't roll out a "new product" until September. Whether that marketing campaign is "4 more surges" or "Iraqi's have failed US" depends on many factors between now and then. A few that come to mind are....just how bad the republican polling looks at the time, just exactly what Unka kkKarl and Frank Luntz's focus groups appear to respond positively to, just how ready and/or developed the Democratic swiftboat group are in place,just how those voter roll purges are playing out,just how those DOJ voter fraud and/or democratic prosecution cases are playing out, and just how many of those Lurita Doan contracts are in the pipeline ready to help out in those republican districts/states?

We definitely need an about "face" in Iraq.

John Randolph wrote on May 8, 2007 10:19 AM:

There seems to be a machine in DC that produces these "in another six months" deadlines, whose logic is always unclear and whose purpose is always to paint people who are ready to make a decision as hotheads.

Surely Bush will still be able to find a figurehead general who will be willing to make an argument that we can still "win"? (whatever that means). Surely any one of the garden variety arguments that are trotted out now in favor of the so-called surge will be trotted out then? They'll still be able to impugn others' patriotism with equal aplomb, no doubt.

What will really change in six months that hasn't changed over the past sixty?

The cynicism of it all is astounding, despite the fact that we've seen it all before.

dominiccjr wrote on May 8, 2007 10:22 AM:

This is tragic. Not only is it beyond frustrating to think how they will just move the goal posts in September....But in May, June, July, and August, at a death rate of over 100 American soldiers a month and Iraqi civilians in far greater numbers than that, and all the terrible injuries that hardly even get any press at all, but represent broken lives...we are....waiting to "check progress"??? So all of those voting to sustain the second veto of George Bush's reign are just accepting all of the inevitable new casualties as the cost of backing away slowly enough from the boy-tyrant to maybe not embarass him too much politically. Nice...Cowards all.

I will not fault the Democrats collectively on this situation as "not having any balls". They have passed good legislation. They have been passionate, worked hard, given good speeches, good criticism of Bush et al, and have done as much as they can do with non-veto-proof margins. It's tragic that party loyalty among Republicans and Joe Lieberman (party of one), who must know the Dems are right about Iraq now, is going to get a whole lot more people killed and maimed. Punish them in 2008.

draftedin68 wrote on May 8, 2007 10:24 AM:

...........

Clank, clank, clank.

I'm not sure if that sound I hear is Duhhbya kicking a can of Eyerack down the road or the dragging of a tailpipe on a hearse as it hauls another American soldier to his final rest.

Kind of a "chicken-or-the-egg" thing, isn't it?

..........

RW wrote on May 8, 2007 10:27 AM:

"Survival of the remnants". GOP has been silently distancing themselves all over the place looking for plausible cover from the Bushies and "Authoritarians at the Gate" knowing that the losses might be formitable.

I doubt it will make it to September before the fracture will become apparent for the survivalists. Understand that throughout the region not totally vested in Evangelical-Militism , (TN, SC, NC, GA, Ark, AL, MS, VA,TX, Okla, Utah, IN, Ky and then parts of OH, PA, WI, SD, ND, WY, CO, KS, CA) there is a moderate GOP contigency represented in the Northeast, West Coast, NW, Inner Mtn and even parts of the Midwest, that is moderate Republicans.

Ironically the most recent poll showed what we know, Bush is unable to be flexible or moderate...thus he must be defeated....look for a compromise that is veto proof as pressure builds, something like a short term funding....crafted by leaders in the Senate & House secretly and then overridden.

It will be the nail politically

David Kesling wrote on May 8, 2007 10:28 AM:

September is only an acceptable deadline if WE THE PEOPLE passively allow it to be. I agree with several here who think posting opinions to this and other blogs is a positive step, but ineffectual when compared with an outpouring of physical letters to your elected representatives. Better still, physical demonstration and rallies. If truly 70 percent of Americans are opposed to this war, then we should be able to powerfully and quickly influence an -elected- government.

marblex wrote on May 8, 2007 10:33 AM:

i like billary's plan since the authorization for the war was obtained under false pretenses, it shuld now be withdrawn.

PrahaPartizan wrote on May 8, 2007 10:35 AM:

Despite the mocking tone by many here about what differentiates September 2007 from any other month with regard to forcing winding down the war, this upcoming September does offer two real assets. First, it's the first September in twelve years that the Democrats have controlled the Congress. Second, it's the end of the fiscal year, when new budget appropriations must be passed (if you're a Democrat, not if you're a Publican). The first condition provides the will and the second condition provides the means to appropriate funds for the American forces in Iraq to satisfy Democratic requirements. The Congressional Publicans are terrified that they will need to vote against the upcoming Defense appropriation, even when the situation in Iraq is a disaster. They know the results of that vote will be bolted to their chests as an anchor for the 2008 election.

Echo wrote on May 8, 2007 10:48 AM:

"he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions"

Petraeus is a peacekeeper now ?
American influence is going to help Shia and Sunni reconcile ?

/Dr Phil
How's that workin' out for ya ?
/end Dr Phil

Talk about mission creep.

Creature wrote on May 8, 2007 10:49 AM:

Chip Reid, just now on MSNBC, confrims that the Friedman's will continue.

[h/t my DVR]

jon wrote on May 8, 2007 10:51 AM:

By all means, wait for September. Go back to sleep, nothing to see here. If we stopped digging now, you might still be able to get out of the hole.

By September lots more schools will be painted. There might be a day without a car bomb and widespread mayhem, a day when no soldier has to die. There might even be an oil law passed - now that would be a real signal.

Come September you'd better be ready for lots more 9/11!!!! all the time. More GWOT, more orange alerts, more random arrests of shifty looking brown people, more blowing up suspicious looking litebrites, more looking at your shoes and taking your toothpaste at the airport. Maybe a little of Saddam's head on a pike for good measure. Definitely a lot more questioning of people's patriotism.

Better to act now.

code word: face - as in, 'Time to face the music, George'.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 10:57 AM:

If history teaches we Americans anything it is that our democracy moves in slow, measured beats. Does that mean we should sit back and patiently await the eventual redeployment. Hell No! Keep up the pressure until the pimple that is Bush pops. Remember the time between the advent of slavery and the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th and 15th Amendments was over 200 years. Lincoln was accused of cowardice in sitting on the Proclamation but was politically astute enough to play the hand when it would have the best and most meaningful effects. Patience and persistence and We Shall Overcome! Come September it is the legislative Reublicans who have voiced the need to see progress who should be squeezed as hard if not harder than wavering Dems

Disturbance wrote on May 8, 2007 10:57 AM:

Actually there is a perfectly good reason to wait until September as the deadline for showing progress in the war. After all, everyone knows you don't roll out a new product in August for goddsakes! September will be a much more auspicious time to roll out NEW Improved Iraq War 6.0 with Extra Surge Power Cleansing FormulaTM!

DCR wrote on May 8, 2007 10:59 AM:

We will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon, regardless of who becomes President. Just look at the infrastructure we have built for our troops, and all the CONTRACTORS over there. There is no "pullout" planned by either party. Think about the logistics of a pullout, for one thing.

We will be there for the duration, i.e. like Korea, Germany, Japan, other countries where we have a permanent military presence.

Anyone who says otherwise is not seeing what is going on there.

Geoff wrote on May 8, 2007 11:04 AM:

Rolling off Disturbance, the Dems should invoke 911 this September and the need to redirect our energies directly at Al Qaeda. Go Scoop Jackson on Bush and verbally deride all who continue to link Al Qaeda to Iraq.

bohdi wrote on May 8, 2007 11:10 AM:

All this is just another predictable stage in denial. A huge wildcard that the Penguin wants desparately to play is Iran. The NeoCon mission in the MiddleEast is chaos and destabilization. What will be a mercenary army of at least 200,000 Okies with automatics on uppers will be a permanent fixture in Mesopotania. The dream of a massive private army to insure the execution of the oil 'sharing' agreements under cover of a corporate media that pretends it does not exist is part of the plan and is endorsed by both the Clinton camp of whores and the bush crime operation. No one dare face down the Elephant in the parlor room who is hoovering down all cookies,tea,kibble,fine china and even the Victorian siding off the window trim. Ask JFK or Martin how easy it is to withdraw the American military industry from a dinner it is in the middle of. You do not approach a Grizzily while it is dining on its carcass.

If Iran is carpet bombed and the Shia finally rise up to cut the southern supply lines then all this changes. There will be no mass movement among the plebians because there is no draft and because they are too fat to arise from their couches.

terry wrote on May 8, 2007 11:14 AM:

well....what does Bush do when congress goes on break?
Get ready for even more creative funny stuff.

Legalize wrote on May 8, 2007 11:18 AM:

Normally I'd agree that this is the same news - different day. But GOPers have to start worrying about their Congressional seats. This will not end based on principle or policy, but because the same GOPers are scared to death that they'll lose their shirts in '08 - for good reason. Their only hope is to attempt to paint an acceptable picture as to why, as of Sept., they will be "against" the war, while for 4 years they've done nothing but yammer "for" it.

I predict that the flip flop industry will enjoy healthy gains between Sept., 2007 and Nov., 2008.

jhickey wrote on May 8, 2007 11:24 AM:

Bullshit bullshit and more bullshit.Dems and Repubs.alike.Colin Powell sold America out.But one true thing he told junior if you go into Iraq you bought it.We now own Iraq.

Nicollo MacPlato wrote on May 8, 2007 11:31 AM:

Listen carefully and you'll hear a neocon
pre-reconstruction plan being whispered in your ear.

First Boehner didn't say September. He said September October. Bait in water.

Next the MSM toadies reported that Boehner was starting to crack and that it was a sign that consevative Repulickins would crack if .... September. Tell me what the if was - you can't - you'll say progress, but what is that and how is it defined. Also, see how reasonable and responsible and (dare I say) compromising it sounds. Gives a lot of people a warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. Hook in mouth.

Next the MSM gives you an affirmation of what you want to hear from Trent Lott. But Lott doesn't say September - He says by the Fall. Fall starts September 21 - ends December 21. Hook is set.

Last - what are you going to say. That it's a scam - that we can't wait until September - that September must mean September 1 or it's a scam - that we must take to the streets and put a stop to the war now because (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you) Bush and the neocons are lying to the Americans public again. You would sound so radical, so uncompromizing, so unreasonable, so knee jerk anti-war, so so liberal. I mean Holy David Broder batman.

You can't throw the hook now. No snark, no oversight, no poll, nothing will take the "By September" out of the subconscience of 'reasonable' people.

That itching feeling you have on your ass is the neocon ticks sucking the lifeblood out of our country.

BTW As I write they are mentally/stategically already in September recontructing what Boehner, Lott, Bush, Petreaus, WaPo etal really meant in May. And just like today we are deconstructing what they said in January, in September we'll be deconstructing what they said/meant in May and in January of 08 we'll be deconstructing the lies of September 07.

BGT wrote on May 8, 2007 11:33 AM:

I've been worrying since last Sunday about Boehner's quote, into which he sneaks "comma, October..."
Can we ask all these September people to do the math, based on the past 5 weeks, of what the casualty figures will be by "September, October"?

BGT

AltHippo wrote on May 8, 2007 11:33 AM:

"By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

If I recall correctly Bush has said that Plan B is getting Plan A to work.

Or was that Colbert? Some times I lose track.

Mooser wrote on May 8, 2007 11:40 AM:

My darling, my darling, just a few more Friedmans til we will be together forever.

cjop wrote on May 8, 2007 11:45 AM:

What a bunch of bullshit. I suppose this gets him the funding without strings. Put pressure on the Dems to continue insisting on withdrawal in the current pending funding.

stuart eugene thiel wrote on May 8, 2007 11:48 AM:

I think the conventional leftblog wisdom, that Bush won't leave Iraq because he a) psychologically cannot and/or b) he wants to leave the mess for his successor, is missing a crucial fact.

Bush's "unitary executive" theory is a recipe for the Commander-in-Chief to transcend mere laws if necessary to deal with the military emergency. If there's no war, it doesn't work, and he has to go back to being a little gray lame duck.

Short version: No war, no war president; no war president, no power grab. Therefore, war must be continued at any cost.

biggerbox wrote on May 8, 2007 11:49 AM:

By September, the pig will still not have flown. Petraeus and others will come to Washington with figures that show, when the dropped the pig off the roof of a tall building, it did not fall straight down, but sort of glided a little bit to the side, due to the winged harness it had been strapped in, and a prevailing gust from the north.

The fact that the pig splattered slightly to one side will be seen as evidence that the plan is making progress, and certain proof that, given enough time, the pig will indeed fly. Certain Senators who will not need to run for a few years will be heard saying "Progress!!" very loudly.

Others will be more realistic, and demand a Plan B. Since 'Mr. Surge' just had an NYT op-ed this weekend saying it's too early for a plan B, we can assume designing such a plan won't start until September, especially since the only logical one (bringing the troops home) is what Democrats want, and is therefore out-of-bounds.

Expect an uptick in "terrorist suspects" arrested over the summer, and The Serious People on TV talking about the danger of 'them' following us over here. Leaving Iraq will 'not be an option.'

I expect that continuing DOJ scandals will bring more GOP opposition to El Jefe than developments in Iraq.

dhs wrote on May 8, 2007 11:51 AM:

The needle is stuck.

Michael Lafferty wrote on May 8, 2007 11:55 AM:

In the 20 weeks or so between now and the end of September 2007—at the current pace per month of approximately 100 soldier and marine deaths, plus a component to account for the US Army's projection of substantially increased casualties as the 'surge' progresses—the number of US armed service members killed in Iraq alone is quite likely to exceed 600. Barring any extraordinary event comparable to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, of course.

To say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Let's see if we can find some more space to place those names of service members on that memorial constructed in the House of Representatives at the direction of the then Republican leadership. Someone ought to carve those names into the desks of every Senator and Representative in Congress, as a constant reminder of the terrible toll this nation has paid under Bush and Cheney!

Sharon A wrote on May 8, 2007 11:57 AM:

Bush/Cheney = baiting and switching their way outta office.

And Republicans and "moderate" democrats are enabling this travesty. Many troops will not be with us to enjoy the Democrats' "new day."

And because Democrats did not act decisively when they were given a strong mandate, they will most certainly lose my vote. Not that it ever matters. But they like to preserve the illusion of suffrage.

cjop wrote on May 8, 2007 12:00 PM:

Forgot to add:

Dems! Careful of an election trap. Puts us really close to election time when the pullout causes all hell to break loose in Iraq. Anyone think that a pullout will result in peace is fooling themselves.

jeremiah wrote on May 8, 2007 12:13 PM:

SEPTEMBER IS RAMADAN!

Isn't this just another Date Certain for Failure? Aren't the terra-ists going to just "wait it out"?

[Sec.Code=sharp, as in the blades that will come out in the GOP as the party primaries ramp up.]

Nina Katarina wrote on May 8, 2007 12:13 PM:

Yep. The deadline is September 31st. Really.

Then the next deadline is February 30th. This time for sure!

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 12:31 PM:

Posted by: RandyR
Date: May 8, 2007 09:51 AM
"the Hydrocarbon Law was written before Iraq had a Parliment, by an American company Bearing Point."

Hmm..Bearing Point has interesting history.
CEO Harry L. You came from Arthur Anderson
( remember Enron?) days, after AA changed its name to Accenture..
Wiki has good information on the contract foibles of the company, which sounds a lot like Enron's games.
Significantly, Bearing Point is deeply involved with Microsoft, Google, Oracle ( another prior Harry You company), and is connected to Jeb Bush contracting schemes. Computers and software and databases and Microsoft and unsavory Bush connections...shudder.
Plus, get this, has 2 major USAID contracts for Afghanistan and...." the job specifications had mostly been written by BearingPoint itself " for the Iraq contract. Remember head of USAID agency just got caught getting those "massages".

What a tangled web.

I agree Bush Mafia has no intention of leaving the middle East.
I further firmly believe there is no intention of holding the 08 elections.
Bird Flu, anyone?

Ed Goldman wrote on May 8, 2007 12:34 PM:

Come September ...what? The issue of benchmarks seems to omit the discussion of what ACTION will take place if benchmarks are not met. If there is a broad consensus that benchmarks are not met, whatever the timeframe, what do we do then? If A, then B. So what's B? Will the Democrats grow a spine and state what type of withdrawal will take place and in what timeframes? I prefer Murtha's suggestion that a new funding bill for the war be for two months only and then renewed based only upon the facts on the ground at that time. If the new funding bill is for a year, then a September benchmark will be meaningless as Bush will continue to do what The Decider wants to do no matter what continuing disasters occur.

crabapple wrote on May 8, 2007 12:38 PM:

The Republican leadership claiming that we must see progress in Iraq by September is a bunch of hot air designed to make the Dems back down on the momentum they have successfully built for ending the "war".

nrglaw wrote on May 8, 2007 12:44 PM:

This is a lot of crap, and everyone who reads this blog knows it.

When do we put on our marching shoes and MARCH!

A big march gets on the evening news, no matter whether the anchor agrees with the point of view expressed. Why can the advocates for immigration reform get 150,000 people in the streets last week in CHICAGO ALONE, and all we can do is peck at our typewriters?

For heavens sake, the blogs are a huge force. But the visual impact of large demonstrations cannot be understated?

Is there anyone here who agrees?

Mark F. wrote on May 8, 2007 12:59 PM:

I find it hilarious that anyone bothers to quote Norm Coleman. The guy is a spineless twit. The King of equivocation.

MichaelAOlson wrote on May 8, 2007 1:01 PM:

Security code: smile

-- Gen. David H. Petraeus has said that by September "he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions."

By September how many more American combat deaths, 450?
By September will the Iraqis decide they just love Americans building walls in Baghdad?
By September will intelligent life evolve in Washingon DC?

How about security code: pathetic

justjayne wrote on May 8, 2007 1:01 PM:

Do you think enough of the Repubs would sign on to a bill funding the war ONLY thru October? Enough to override a veto by 'HERR GENERAL'......Seems worth a try.

jaywrite wrote on May 8, 2007 1:33 PM:

If anyone watched Condi Rice on Charlie Rose last night, you KNOW that 'we' are already making great progress in Iraq.

You can say one thing about her... she can bullshit with the best of them.

SteveW wrote on May 8, 2007 2:29 PM:

No doubt, I think we all know oil is a huge component to this Iraq war invasion; the other is the neocon allegiance to Israel.

Pentagon announces Iraq deployments that could maintain troop buildup through December
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, AP | May 8, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon has notified more than 35,000 Army soldiers to be prepared to deploy to Iraq beginning this fall, a move that would allow commanders to maintain the ongoing buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Share on Digg
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday the deployment orders, which have been signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, do not mean that the military has made a decision to keep the increased level of 20 brigades in Iraq through December. A brigade is roughly 3,500 soldiers.

Instead, he said the decision gives the Pentagon the "capability" to carry the buildup to the end of the year. The replacement forces, Whitman said, would give commanders in Iraq the flexibility they need to complete the mission there.

The announcement, said Whitman, has "nothing to do" with a decision to extend the troop buildup. He said the Pentagon "has been very clear that a decision about the duration of the surge will depend on conditions on the ground."

Early this year, President Bush ordered close to 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to quell the spiking violence particularly in and around Baghdad. Gates and his military leaders have said that commanders in Iraq will make recommendations in September on whether the buildup has been successful, and whether it should continue or if troops can begin coming home.

lestatdelc wrote on May 8, 2007 3:14 PM:

I really realyl wish Punchy was wrong up-thread. But alas I think Punchy nailed it.

ode word: Memory... yep, I rememebr this song and dance form before.

Delia wrote on May 8, 2007 5:08 PM:

No really. September. We really mean it this time. Really we do. Really Really Really.

Reminds me of a song of my youth.

Will I see you in SepTEMberrr.....?
Or lose you. . . . . .
To a summer lover . . . . . . ?

Mr.Murder wrote on May 8, 2007 6:40 PM:

Take a gander at home many Guard dumpt trucks, etc. are being claimed as cost-plus expenses for Halliburton.

Bet you anything they are padding stats and payroll w/the guard items to joe taxpayer's accounts billable.

Ryan wrote on May 8, 2007 9:55 PM:

Bush & Cheney & Rumsfled are just punk smirking actors-and they know it. The directors are/were "the power behind the throne"-namely:Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith-all jewish and all Rothschild/Rockefeller (who are "the producers of this soap opera) agents -period. It's very simple-the same M.O. as the Vietnam war being used decades later: a war based on lies. Only this time they didn't have to kill a REAL (as opposed to a two bit weasel actor: Jackass George Bush) president, JFK to get away with it-they had their own little stooge in place already.The Bush family, back to his grandfather, are the biggest U.S. political stooges in history of "the international banking families clique " headed by the Rothschilds. Some other names being: Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb, Oppenheimer-and many more lesser "associates"-including associates in the "military/industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about in 1960.S ome of these associates are : Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root and Bechtel-and big defense contractors of all stripes. More than half a trillion spent so far-almost nothing on earth will make more money faster than a big war, using expensive high-tech. weapons no less. The war was based on lies-deliberate, planned lies (just like 911 was planned as the "mobilizing event" required to kick off the war. That con was not, at the top, planned by any arabs-it was planned in Germany by the above consortium of "bankers". The hijackers had no idea who they were really working for. There are many indications of this- for those who know how these weasels operate you can "spot them all". So: congress should pull the plug on the war now, regardless of any consequences- and if the Rothschilds and their con-artist, lying weasel buddies don't like it, they should send in their own Israeli army and see how they like that for a change-or maybe they should con the Chinese or other arab armies or some other suckers into being their Oswald-like patsies for once. Of course "snowball's chance in hell" of congress doing this-too many dumb hick republican congressmen & senators in the way -so that Bush can veto with impunity.Imagine if you had a relative in the National Guard or Army Reserve killed or maimed in Iraq- or if you're in the regular army/marines and get your tours extended and then extended again. They didn't "sign up for this"-they should all refuse to go. The bottom line is: the weasels got away with their lies , thanks to the usual stupidity of congress-particularly republicans from our "wonderful" dumb- as- a -rock rural, midwestern and southern states-the descriptive words are: "stupid, gulliable, asininely patriotic/religious suckers".Of course if the mass media wasn't toally controlled even these suckers would soon get a clue (clues in spades in fact). It's absolutely no coincidence Bush calls himself a "christian" (yeah, right and Cheney's the Easter Bunny)-it's a con to get a huge voting block suckered to do the weasels bidding, via "Pious George" . Bush and everyone else in his "administration/gang of criminals" are all laughing all the way to the proverbial bank.The only half good one was Colin Powell, and when he found out the depth of the lies he spouted before the U.N. he got the hell away from Jackass George and the other donkeys real fast. Ever wonder why Cheney has a perpetual demented smirk on his face, and why, even when things are serious, Bush has his own stupid little smirk & swagger?-well wonder no more. But it's easy to con "the masses" when you and your associates own the mass media (the only media that really counts vis-a-vis "'the masses") lock stock & barrel, and have for so long that it isn't even funny ( as in: starting in earnest around 1910, in this country).

wxofyjae rwfouil wrote on June 6, 2007 2:45 PM:

rspjt rszbwph lwbhrjk ycztekvoh opij kxre vrqcn

wxofyjae rwfouil wrote on June 6, 2007 2:46 PM:

rspjt rszbwph lwbhrjk ycztekvoh opij kxre vrqcn

wxofyjae rwfouil wrote on June 6, 2007 2:47 PM:

rspjt rszbwph lwbhrjk ycztekvoh opij kxre vrqcn

wxofyjae rwfouil wrote on June 6, 2007 2:48 PM:

rspjt rszbwph lwbhrjk ycztekvoh opij kxre vrqcn