The Blue State

That's all for today

More posts tomorrow.  Have a good evening everyone.

Maliki to Bush: Shiite militias are not a big problem

President Bush is not the only one in a state of denial.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn't seem to regard the Shiite militias, such as the one led by Moqtada al-Sadr, as a serious threat.  Time Magazine's Aparism Ghosh, who is stationed in Baghdad, gave the two men a reality check:

In truth, the Prime Minister has done little to bridge the sectariangap; if anything, he has occasionally contributed to widening thechasm. Many in Baghdad also found some unintended black humor in Bush'sdescription of al-Maliki as "a strong leader." After all, just theprevious day, a leaked memo from National Security Adviser StephenHadley had revealed how the Administration really views al-Maliki: asan isolated figure in the green zone with little demonstrable abilityto affect the course of events outside.

Al-Maliki's aides, in turn, leaked to reporters that the Iraqi PrimeMinister told President Bush that dealing with the Shi'ite militiaswould not be a "big problem." In reality, al-Maliki has been totallypowerless against the militias, especially since they are loyal to hisown political allies. So it was hard to believe Bush was being sincerewhen he declared he was "reassured by the Prime Minister's commitmentto a ... a society in which people are held into account who break thelaw — whether these people will be criminals al-Qaeda, militia,whoever."

...In short, the Amman summit did little to persuade Iraqis that things are about to get better anytime soon.

When people laugh at the notion that their own Prime Minister is a "strong leader," there is a good chance that no one will ever take him seriously again.  A lack of sincerity can sometimes do more to inflame the situation.  President Bush managed to do just that during his trip to Jordan.  What an embarrassment.

Axelrod: Maliki asks Bush for more "tools" in Iraq

So are those "tools" going to come in the form of more U.S. soldiers used as helpless human shields in Baghdad?  Jim Axelrod of CBS news analyzes the press conference today between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki:

This follows a very difficult two days as far as their relationship was concerned.  A classified memo was leaked to the New York Times that quoted National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley as being worried that Maliki had the skills to lead Iraq.  Today, Bush and Maliki did their best to dismiss this rift:

"He's the right guy for Iraq," Bush said of al-Maliki after the two met Thursday.

"There is no problem," declared al-Maliki.

For many reasons, including the reason stated above, this was one of the worst foreign policy trips of any U.S. President.  The leader of the free world was snubbed, and couldn't do anything about it.  Bush has lost control of almost anything that goes on in Iraq.

Challenging the conventional wisdom about Hillary

Chuck Todd, one of my favorite political analysts, challenged the media's conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite in the race for the Democratic nomination:

As the likelihood of a Clinton campaign becomes a reality, more reasonsturn up that suggest why she could lose the nomination. In fact, theprimary may be harder for her than the general election. A badthree-week period at the wrong time in the wrong state could doom abid, particularly with this front-loaded primary calendar. While thesame thing can happen in a general, the same ridiculous scoring ofexpectations doesn't apply to general elections the way it does inprimary battles.

The primaries are mostly about momentum.  Remember the Dean collapse in Iowa?  No, I am not referring to the "Dean scream" -- it happened before that.  As Iowa voters had second thoughts about Dean and Gephardt, the two front runners, both Kerry and Edwards, had all the momentum going into the final week.  In the end, Kerry won Iowa, and went on to win the nomination.  Because of the front-loaded primary schedule, as Chuck Todd alluded to, the nomination might all come down to the final week before Iowa.  So much will be decided in so little time.

Limbaugh crowd's latest laughable Iraq excuse

As of late, the Rush Limbaugh radio show has turned into a forum where guests get to invent creative excuses that justify the White House's position that Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war.  The latest one: Baghdad isn't any worse than Washington DC.  Guest-host Roger Hedgecock tries to explain.

This is from Media Matters:

HEDGECOCK: They're calling it.In other words, it's like Floridafor [Democratic presidentialcandidate Al] Gore. This is -- you know, this is -- they'recalling the election. It's now a civil war.Boy, I'm glad we've clarified that. Let's see. Did they call Bosnia andKosovo a civil war? Huh?

Did they -- did they callwhat's going on -- and by the way, the murder rate -- whatever you hear,whenever you hear a story about Baghdad about blowing up, about -- you know,today two car bombs went off in the entire country. The murder rate in Baghdad, the people being killed in Baghdad, is lowerthan the murder rate of Washington, D.C. Is Washington, D.C., in acivil war? NBC has not called it, so I dare not say.

And yes, this is worthy of being posted on this web site.  The Rush Limbaugh show is listened to by tens of millions of Americans each week.  Think about the significance.  If Rush Limbaugh came out and said we should withdraw from Iraq, Bush's base would collapse and we would be out of there.  The fact that Limbaugh's audience is being subjected to denial after denial about Iraq is only helping in the effort to prolong this war.

Powell: Iraq is in a civil war

During a speech on trade in Dubai, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked by a CNN reporter if he agreed with NBC and the majority of most analysts that Iraq is in a state of civil war.  Colin Powell said yes, it is a civil war:

GORANI: Well, within the context of the leadersconference in Dubai and also within the context of this debate, thissemantics debate, over whether to call what is going on on in Iraq acivil war, the former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he thinks wecan call it a civil war and added if he were still heading the StateDepartment, he probably would recommend to the Bush administration thatthose terms should be used in order to come to terms with the realityon the ground.

I’m paraphrasing what he told me. This was closed to cameras andthis was something he said within the context of this academic debatewith 2 or 3,000 people watching on in the region.

Remember though, if any Administration official admits that Iraq is in a civil war, then they have an obligation to withdraw troops -- otherwise they would be going against their own word.  How do I come to that conclusion, you ask?  According to a Bush aide that spoke to Newsweek back in August, if Iraq descended into a civil war, Bush would pull troops out:

"If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allowour forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. "Butinstitutionally, the government of Iraq isn't breaking down. It's stilla unity government."

I have a funny feeling that some Administration officials will start calling this a civil war, part of an obvious attempt to distance themselves from the President and his Iraq legacy before he steps down in January of 2009.  Really though, if you were part of orchestrating a policy mess like this, wouldn't you want to run from it?  Look for the phrase "civil war" to start being used in the coming weeks by State Department and even Pentagon officials.  There are government bureaucrats that want to have jobs in 2009.

Of course, this is more than just a civil war -- it is a precursor to genocide, according to Time Magazine.

11/30/06: Thursday Morning Political Clips

Here are your morning political clips for Thursday, November 30, 2006.

1) Howard Dean in Montreal.

2) Fox News panders to the base by attacking the blind.  They only show stories like this to anger the conservative base.

3) Lee Hamilton on the importance of the UN.  This is a realist talking.

4) DSJ pretends to investigate legality of NSA spy program.  Cafferty responds.

5) Faith based Melee in Iraq.  From the Daily Show.

More clips tomorrow.

Baker-Hamilton Commission to call for troop pullback

This refers to the Iraq Study Group report that will be released late next week.

While many would argue that most people in power today have yet to accept the reality in Iraq, the Baker-Hamilton Commission is at least getting close to it.  On December 6th, the commission, otherwise known as the Iraq Study Group, will release its report.

A source tells the New York Times that the Baker-Hamilton Commission will call for a pullback of a significant number of U.S. troops from the line of fire:

The bipartisan IraqStudy Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report thatwill call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades nowin Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for theirwithdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report also focuses on more than just Iraq:

As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk ofthe report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation thatthe United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative inthe Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, includingdirect engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts mightbe part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peaceissues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they wouldultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.

Obviously this stops short of getting all the troops out and setting a firm deadline for being able to do so.  As the New York Times adds, the Democrats on the commission wanted a timetable:

Although the diplomatic strategy takes up the majority of the report,it was the military recommendations that prompted the most debate,people familiar with the deliberations said. They said a draft reportput together under the direction of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton hadcollided with another, circulated by other Democrats on the commission,that included an explicit timeline calling for withdrawal of the combatbrigades to be completed by the end of next year. In the end, the twoproposals were blended.

I know this might be frustrating to many of you who read this blog on a daily basis.  But we are getting there.  The gravity in this debate is shifting closer to what we want: an acknowledgment of reality.  What we need to be doing in the blogosphere is pressuring Democratic lawmakers to add leverage by challenging Bush more on the alleged al Qaeda-Iraq connection.  If we go all-out in this debate from here on out by pressuring Democrats to be more aggressive, then it will likely speed up the process in which troops are redeployed to the periphery.

All of us, through blogs like this one and political action committees, can make a difference.  The lawmakers we need to be pressuring the most are the two most influential Democrats in the field of foreign relations: Joe Biden and Carl Levin.  They both chair influential Senate committees, therefore can control the tone of the debate and how long certain issues are to be debated.

This foreign policy discussion is only beginning.  But we need to get involved!

11/29/06: Wednesday Political Clips

Here are your daily political clips for Wednesday, November 29, 2006.  Sorry they are a bit late.

1) Danny DeVito slams Bush on the view while drunk.

2) Gingrich wants to suppress free speech on the internet.  The possible 2008 presidential candidate comes out against net neutrality.

3) Nonsense on Fox.  A Fox News host compares Jordan to Connecticut.

4) Geraldo gets into it with Hannity about NYC shooting.

5) Colbert cleans out his Tivo.

More clips tomorrow.

Al-Sadr's threat convinces Maliki to cancel dinner with Bush

Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki has snubbed President Bush.  Caving into the demands of Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr -- who pledged to topple the Iraqi government if Maliki met with Bush today -- the dinner has been rescheduled to tomorrow.

This comes on the heels of a memo from National Security Stephen Hadley that was leaked to the New York Times and published today.  The memo doubted that Maliki has a very good "interpretation of reality", and even suggested that Maliki might be "ignorant" of what is going on outside his heavily fortified bubble.  Therefore, the postponement of this event may have had something to do with the memo.  For the most part, however, Maliki was probably caving into the demands of al-Sadr's militia.  It goes to show who is really in control in Iraq.

The White House gave a pathetic excuse as to why Maliki and Bush didn't meet:

"Since the King of Jordan and the prime minister had a bilateralthemselves earlier today, everyone believed that it negated the purposeof the three of them to meet tonight together in a trilateral setting,"Dan Bartlett, White House counsellor, told reporters.

That makes absolutely no sense.  As I wrote on Sunday, the next ten days would be crucial in terms of Iraq's future.  Already, we are seeing the breakdown of relations between Bush and Maliki, as well as the increased influence of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia.

Iraq is going nowhere but south, and our young troops are caught in the middle of a failed policy.