The public has long since exhausted our jabs, sneers, and disgust at the speech President Bush famously made on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Today, the White House finally expresses regret.

But Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, is just now saying that the Bush administration has “certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner”.

Have you really paid the price, Ms. Perino? Nearly five years have passed since Bush made that speech and the White House is just now marking its error. The mission is far from accomplished… soldiers lives confirm this.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Yes, so it would seem.  The Bush admin released photographic evidence of a nuclear reactor built in Syria, reportedly with the aid of N. Korea, who for most of the Bush Presidency was considered under the rule of Kim Jong-Il to be a terrorist state, dangerous to the world… while also being largely ignored and un-f**ked with, because it was known that unlike say… Iraq?… N. Korea actually had the weapons capabilities to seriously attack the U.S. at any given moment.  We’re talking nukes here people.

That stance had been softening as of last year as the Bush admin worked to secure some sort of deal with N. Korea that would see the N. Korean gov’t disclosing all nuclear activities and to an extent de-arming, and the U.S. in exchange lightening up on sanctions and possibly beginning to work with the country.

The crucial question now is how the North Koreans will react. Some officials said they hoped it would embarrass the North Koreans into admitting to nuclear proliferation activities and others said that it could prompt them to walk away from the negotiating table - and collapse the deal Bush was hoping to reach by the end of his presidency. In return for North Korea’s declaring all its nuclear activities, the United States would lift sanctions and begin to negotiate the prize for North Korea’s turning over its fuel and weapons.

It also raises the possibility of new tensions with Syria, as the White House accused the Syrian government on Thursday of a “cover-up” consistent with a government that “supports terrorism, takes action that destabilizes Lebanon” and allows militants to enter Iraq.

Only selected pictures were released by the intelligence agencies on Thursday, including a video that combined still photos and drawings and had a voice-over that gave the presentation the feel of a Cold War news reel about the Korean War. In fact, it was intended in part, officials said, to try to draw that war - in which the United States and North Korea never signed a peace treaty - to a close.

Inside the administration, the battle over whether to try to strike a deal with North Korea or keep it under sanctions in hopes of triggering its collapse continues into the last months of the Bush presidency.

At the CIA, Admiral Michael Hayden, the agency’s director, told employees Thursday that they should “take heart because our team effort on the Al Kibar reactor is a case study in rigorous analytic tradecraft, skillful human and technical collection, and close collaboration.”

But even this victory, some experts note, raises questions about the agency’s focus. The reactor was built within 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, of the Iraqi border yet never identified, even though the administration was searching for any form of such weapons programs over the border.

Moreover, even some senior officials of the Bush administration acknowledge that they are likely to leave Bush’s successor with a North Korea that has roughly 10 nuclear weapons or fuel for weapons, up from the one or two weapons that Bush inherited.

“I’d say the score is Kim Jong Il eight, and Bush zero,” said Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of “Nuclear Terrorism,” who was in Washington Thursday to testify about Iran’s nuclear program. “And if you can build a reactor in Syria without being detected for eight years, how hard can it be to sell a little plutonium to Osama bin Laden?”

So what we’re really looking at here is another case of the world becoming and EVEN MORE dangerous place during the Bush Presidency, than it had been prior.  And with so much focus and resources sunk into the war in Iraq, just like the worsening conditions along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan (which, if you’ll remember is where the terrorists who actually attacked us really hang out), N. Korea and Syria (as mentioned above- only 100 miles outside of the Iraqi border) are increasing their nuclear capabilities.  How’s that for Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Anyone else get that sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach?

Popularity: 4% [?]

With the success of the troop surge in Iraq (so says Gen. Petraeus), President Bush has decided to give the troops a break. He’s ordered a deployment cut back from 15 months to 12 months.

Whoop-de-friggin’-do.

A few things to consider:

The 12 month combat tours won’t take affect until August, 2008. Too bad, so sad for all the soldiers in the desert right now who still have to complete their 15 months tours.

It’s also interesting to note that the “new” deployment tours take affect only a few months before a new president moves into the White House. That translates into troop availability not being affected until August 2009. This could potentially be a move to disable options available to the new president who may not have as much flexibility with troop increases or decreases.

And another point made by Phillip Carter at the Washington Post who argues that the 12 month long Army deployments are still too long:

This is an extremely long deployment, particularly for troops engaged in dangerous work outside the wire and away from the comforts of large U.S. bases. The combat-stress literature suggests there is a finite limit to the quantity of combat an individual can experience before he/she breaks down and becomes “combat ineffective.” For sustained major combat operations, like Guadalcanal or the Hurtgen Forest, that figure is 60 days or so. We don’t know exactly what the figure is for sustained counterinsurgency operations of the sort practiced in Baghdad or Baqubah. But there is a limit. And the most recent mental health survey statistics from the Pentagon indicate that we are rapidly pushing our soldiers and Marines toward it — and beyond — in order to sustain the force in Iraq.

It’s apparent the damage is done for the troops who have completed both 12 and 15 month tours. Not to mention multiple deployments… many have completed three or more year long tours already. And at what cost? At the cost of “staying the coarse”?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Coming up to the date when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus will tell Congress the plans he has worked out for the U.S. Military’s future in Iraq, Dubbya has come out again to paint a lovely picture of the Iraq he views (based nowhere in reality) where things are really just ducky, and it’s Congress being overly critical of the gov’t in Iraq that’s causing so many problems. Way to win them over there George.

Bush rejected criticisms of the war’s progress on Thursday.

“Some members of Congress decided the best way to encourage progress in Baghdad was to criticize and threaten Iraq’s leaders while they’re trying to work out their differences,” he said. “But hectoring was not what the Iraqi leaders needed.”

Hectoring? WTF does that mean you ask? Did Bush just create another Bushism while trying to say something like “heckling”? Nope. Hectoring is a legit word, observe-

hec·tor (hktr)
n.
A bully.
v. hec·tored, hec·tor·ing, hec·tors
v.tr.
To intimidate or dominate in a blustering way.
v.intr.
To behave like a bully; swagger.
[Latin Hectr, Hektor, from Greek Hektr.]

To behave like a bully; swagger.

And if anyone knows how to bully and use swagger, it’s this guy-

Popularity: 3% [?]

Here are a few things you’ll take away after watching part 2 of Bush’s War:

• The military planning of the Iraq invasion never seriously took into account the amount of civilian unrest that would follow the ousting of Saddam. 
• Our government actually thought our military would be withdrawn from Iraq by December 2003.  That’s eight months after the initial invasion.
• We put all our eggs in the “weapons of mass destruction basket” and our strategy was shattered when they never materialized.

The series ends at the beginning of the 2006 troop surge. 

Absent from Frontline’s analysis of the Iraq invasion is Gen. Petraeus who spearheaded the new surge plan that helped reinforce our “clear, hold, and build” strategy.  Absent also is the cost of the war in American and international deaths and in economic strain.

The final words are a grim reminder of where we are today after five years of an American presence in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan.  Are the narrators words a bit too liberal?  Should we be thinking with more optimism?  Watch and read for yourself.

NARRATOR:

Violence is down in Iraq. They are cautiously calling clear, hold and build a success. But at a cost. The troops and reserves are stretched dangerously thin. The military worries how long the surge can be sustained. In his last State of the Union address, George W. Bush made a final plea to history …

PRESIDENT BUSH:

“The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our nation. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. We must do the difficult work today so that years form now, people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.”

NARRATOR:

Soon Bush’s war will be handed to someone new.

Popularity: 3% [?]