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% [?]

In Iraq 2005, every building you went to on a military installation had a poster, every dining hall had a table setting, and we watched as periodically someone would place a piece of tape with a new rank for Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin, a Private First Class when he was captured in 2004 as his convoy was ambushed west of Baghdad.

Last month Maupin’s remains were recovered almost 4 years to the day of his disappearance. Also last month Sgt. Kent Maupin, Matt’s younger brother, reenlisted in the Marines. This brings one story to an end, and adds a new beginning for another. As of yet, very few details have been released about what happened to Matt Maupin.

I can’t imagine what the family is going through, nor the amount of pride and committment that Kent Maupin feels in his duty. I admire him for his convictions, as I know they would not be my own. I only wish for his safety and well being in the future, where ever it may take him. And for the whole family, perhaps a sense of closure as finally they can lay their son to rest.

Popularity: 2% [?]

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% [?]

Nope, it’s more “stay the course” and “wait and see” from the man leading the way in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus.

So what exactly is going to happen in Iraq?

(Petraeus) was careful to emphasize that any withdrawals — after a recommended 45-day halt this summer — would be based on security conditions at the time, Petraeus’ acknowledgment went slightly further than his stubborn refusal Tuesday to discuss the level of U.S. troops after the July pause.

“I can foresee a reduction beyond the 15 [brigades], yes, sir,” Petraeus said, referring to the number of military units that will remain in Iraq once the surge ends in July. “We have a number of months and a number of substantial actions to take before then, but we are already identifying areas that we think are likely candidates for that.”

Of course that left some in the House Armed Services Committee with grave concerns.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the committee’s chairman, said U.S. military and intelligence leaders have argued any future terrorist attack is likely to come from Al Qaeda operatives based in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“When looking at the needs in Afghanistan, the effort in Iraq, however important, is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us,” Skelton said.

So with the count of troops in Iraq not unlikely to remain the same through to the elections in November, what does this mean for the Cadidates?

For the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who has tethered his political fate to the war, the freeze could hurt or help him, said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.

The U.S. military role in Iraq “will constantly remind voters about a Republican problem that is unpopular, controversial and seen as a policy failure,” Zelizer said. At the same time, Democrats shouldn’t assume the war issue will break their way.

“Americans often support hawks or military figures to get the nation out of messy wars,” he said, citing Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, who ended the Korean War in 1953, and Richard Nixon, who brought most U.S. forces home from Vietnam 20 years later.

Obama, Clinton

McCain and the two Democratic presidential candidates — Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York — addressed Iraq yesterday as Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before two Senate committees.

Clinton, 60, said it was time to begin an “orderly process” of withdrawal. Obama said setting a timetable for a pullout would force Iraqi leaders to resolve sectarian disputes.

The Democratic rivals are responding to weak public support for the Iraq war. Sixty percent of all Americans favor setting a timetable for removing U.S. forces, while 35 percent support keeping a significant number of troops there until the situation improves, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll taken Feb. 21 through Feb. 24.

McCain, 71, reiterated his view that the U.S. troop buildup ordered by Bush last year has been a success and that a premature American withdrawal would be “reckless and irresponsible.”

No `Abyss’

“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” McCain said.

At the same time, McCain sought to refute Democratic criticisms that he supported an unlimited U.S. commitment and was overly optimistic about the course of the conflict.

McCain said his goal was “an Iraq that no longer needs American troops.” And he elicited testimony from Petraeus that was critical of the performance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki and Iraqi security forces in fighting against Shiite militias in Basra.

Clinton, like McCain a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also used her moment in the spotlight to counter critics of her position on Iraq — in this case, McCain and his assertion that those supporting withdrawal were irresponsible.

“It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again at such tremendous cost,” Clinton said.

The administration and its supporters “often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater cost of continuing the same failed policy,” she said.

`Strategic Blunder’

Obama, 46, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a “massive strategic blunder.”

“Our military is overstretched and the Pentagon has acknowledged it,” he said. “When you have finite resources, you’ve got to define your goals tightly and modestly.”

One way or the other, with the economy recently being the focal point of election debate leaving all other issues as footnotes, Iraq is likely to get a fair amount of press in the near future.

Popularity: 3% [?]

*“if the highest Shi’ite religious authority demand it”.

It was the first time Sadr has offered to dissolve the Mehdi Army militia, whose black-masked fighters have been principle actors throughout Iraq’s five-year-old war and the main foes of U.S. and Iraqi forces in widespread battles over recent weeks.

The news came on the day Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who launched a crackdown on the militia late last month, ordered the Mehdi Army to disband or Sadr’s followers would be excluded from Iraqi political life.

Senior Sadr aide Hassan Zargani said Sadr would seek rulings from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shi’ite cleric, as well as senior Shi’ite clergy based in Iran, on whether to dissolve the Mehdi Army, and would obey their orders.

“If they order the Mehdi Army to disband, Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr movement will obey the orders of the religious leaders,” Zargani told Reuters from neighboring Iran, where U.S. officials say Sadr has spent most of the past year.

That puts the spotlight on the reclusive Sistani, 77, a cleric revered by all of Iraq’s Shi’ite factions and whose edicts carry the force of Islamic law.

Sistani, who almost never leaves his house in Najaf, has intervened in Iraqi politics only a handful of times but on each occasion his rulings have been decisive.

It speaks volumes for the state of things in Iraq and our considerable poor estimations and cultural misunderstandings that a feat we (including U.S. backed Iraq Prez Nuri Kamal al-Maliki) have been trying to accomplish for years could come to pass on the words of a reclusive cleric living in Iran- a country that our government has no love lost for.

The fighting in Basra and Baghdad has brought Iraq back into the headlines after a long stretch of relative calm following the surge strategy that was put in place as well as a cease-fire called for by Moqtada al-Sadr last year.  With General Petraeus set to report to Washington again in the next few days, including face time with Presidential hopefuls Clinton, Obama, and McCain, it remains to be seen how the recent events will influence talks of withdrawing troops from Iraq, not to mention dialogue about the overall future of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Popularity: 2% [?]

The Republican National Committee has been sending out the following article written by Zachary Roth from the Columbia Journalism Review.  Now, I know I for one have taken issue with statements attributed to Prez hopeful John McCain in regards to the length of time troops could wind up staying in Iraq, but at the same time, many of us have been a bit misdirected in how exactly he said it, read on-

Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. …

But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters — if not outright lying to them — about exactly what McCain said. …

Here’s McCain’s full quote, in context, from back in January:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long. That’s a very different thing. …

Nevertheless, back in February, Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.” …

Today, for instance, he said: “We can’t afford to stay in Iraq, like John McCain said, for another hundred years.” … In other words, he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it. Progress, of a kind. …

To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing …

True.  McCain isn’t saying he wants to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years.  Just that he’s willing to do so.

Glad we’ve got that cleared up.  Semantics are wonderful fun aren’t they?  I for one am not swayed to McCain’s side by this.  Because not only do I not want to see our troops (self included) in Iraq for the next hundred years.  I’m not willing to vote for a man who’s willing to have that happen, regardless of the capacity.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Answer- Someone needs to step down and they all need to learn how to fucking get along!

You’ll have to excuse me here for getting a little worked up, but seriously, WTF is going on?  It’s a wretched time to be an American.  We’ve got recession on tap, joblessness (can’t say unemployment because most jobless people have given up on looking for new job and filing for unemployment, so the numbers are going down) never-ending war, and the people we all hoped might be able to drag us out of this won’t get out of each other’s shit, unite, and try to actually do something good for the country and it’s people.  Like Bill Clinton said recently- “Chill out.”  (Only, he said it for the wrong cause.  Bill buddy, your wife is losing.  Get over it.)

Democrats… someone either stop Hillary, or tell Obama that he’s good, the people like him, but the machine wants him to wait his turn.  Because right now, the more the two candidates drag this out and go back and forth with each other, the longer McCain gets to be largely ignored by the media and come into the actual elections looking relatively good- as he’s spent months letting the Dems do the work of tearing themselves apart for him.

And Iraq… oh Iraq.  We need to talk.  There’s something that’s been bugging us lately, and it’s mostly got to do with the fact that you all really don’t want us around.  Well guess what?  We don’t really want to be there either, but unless you can get all your religious factions to unite around common love for your state, we’re not going to be allowed to leave because someone somewhere thinks we’re keeping the peace or something.  I don’t give a rats ass if you’re a sunni or shiite or kurd, or if the whole damn country decides to convert to scientology.  Don’t care.  But guess what, I don’t agree with what the psycho-right-wing-conservative-christian-led government we’ve got here is up to 99% of the time, but shooting up the joint isn’t really the best way to go about these things.  Especially where you’ve got psycho-right-wing-conservative-christian-cowboys like Dubbya involved in the show. 

Ok, militias, the top dog wants you all to lay down your arms.  Got it.  Welcome to every backwoods NRA member asshole’s compound up in the forests of bumfuck USA.  “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand”.  If you want to keep your guns, go hole up somewhere, shut up, and if you keep yours asses out of trouble, people will ignore you.  Then you can set up target practice ranges and fire off all the weapons you want.  al-Maliki, al-Sadr, you two need to sit down and work something out, or one of you has to take your people and go somewhere else.  It’s that simple.

And hey, we’ll accept blame.  We came into Iraq, we fucked it all up, factioned you guys up worse than before, and then played you all against each other so that we could claim we were working with the people to fight extremists. 

Look, we’d love to make things better for you guys, but haven’t you realized?  We can’t even figure out the relatively simple issue of our own country, which largely sits within the same political and religious spectrum, with a few easily workable differences (”in god we trust” is on the money, guess what- money IS the god we’re putting our trust in.  It’s got nothing to do with Jesus.  So atheists, I feel for you, but currency is the god we’re all kneeling to, you included.  Get over it.)  so how in the blue hell do you think we’re gonna be able to figure you guys out?  You all need to fix your damn country so we can pretend we had something to do with it, and leave feeling proud that we “stayed the course” or “accomplished the mission” or some other bumper sticker nonsense.

Which brings me back home…  Dems.  If you really want to fix America, start with yourselves.  If you’re not going to pull troops out, then say it.  Stop all the bullshit about pulling “combat forces” from Iraq, meaning you’ll be leaving just about everyone who’s over there now, because a large brunt of the forces are either support, or “peace keeping” or training.  And stop pretending you’re anything but politicians.  You’re not preachers, you’re not working class, you’re not heroes or victims… you’re politicians.  You’re walking talking scum sucking pieces of trash that unfortunately we need to run our country without us because the public that was supposed to be keeping tabs on things- decided to watch The Simple Life with Paris Hilton instead of caring about what’s going on in the economy (wish you’d paid atttention now don’t you?).  And for the love of god (read: $) settle down and pick just one person to run for President, because as bad as a Democrat might be in office… at least it wouldn’t be another Republican promising continued war and having no ideas in regards to domestic policies.  Sorry John, I can appreciate your past and all, but Iraq is a money pit, and we’re not really set up to “win” anything without sinking our country so deep it’ll never recover.

I know I’ve gotten off on a bit of a rant here today… but let’s face it, if you’re not pissed off- you’re not paying enough attention.

Popularity: 3% [?]

As reported earlier, the Mahdi army had been facing off against the Iraqi government and army in the city of Basra after the gov’t ordered the Shiite militia lay down their arms and staged a siege on the city. 
Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, founder of the Mahdi army, on Sunday ordered the militia to cease fire, and submitted a list of demands to the gov’t. 

The substance of Mr. Sadr’s statement, released Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the discussions.

Still, though fighting was reported to have died down by late afternoon in Basra, it continued in Baghdad, including heavy combat by Iraqi and American troops and aircraft in the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, casting uncertainty on the deal.

The negotiations with Mr. Sadr were seen as a serious blow for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who had vowed that he would see the Basra campaign through to a military victory and who has been harshly criticized even within his own coalition for the stalled assault.

Last week, Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Kadir al-Obeidi, conceded that the government’s military efforts in Basra have met with far more resistance than was expected. Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.

And it was a chance for Mr. Sadr to flaunt his power, commanding both armed force and political strength that can forcefully challenge the other dominant Shiite parties, including Mr. Maliki’s Dawa movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. In the statement, Mr. Sadr told militia members “to end all military actions in Basra and in all the provinces” and “to cooperate with the government to achieve security.”

But Mr. Sadr also demanded concessions, including that the government grant a general amnesty for his followers, release all imprisoned members of the Sadrist movement who have not been convicted of crimes and bring back “the displaced people who have fled their homes as a result of military operations.”

It was not clear if the government was willing to meet those demands.

Mr. Sadr’s willingness to negotiate represents a significant shift from his stance in 2004, when he ordered his militia to fight to the death in the holy city of Najaf, and suggests that his political sophistication and strategic skills have grown in the last two years.

In response to all of the action in Basra and Baghdad American military forces have been launching airstrikes on strategic locations in neighborhoods, as well as sending armored vehicles on patrol.  According to unofficial reports around 500 have been killed or injured as a result of the violence.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Mahdi army militiamen are currently engaging Iraqi army and Iraqi government forces with greater frequency and intensity as of this week, as the government sent their troops in to wrest control of the city of Basra from the Shiite militia founded by Moktada al-Sadr.

Moktada al-Sadr is the Shiite cleric who called for the ceasefire last year that has helped in conjuncture with “the surge” to hold violence in Iraq to a lower level in recent memory.

Senior members of several political parties said Saturday that the operation, ordered by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, had been poorly planned. The growing discontent adds a new level of complication to the American-led effort to demonstrate that the Iraqi government had made strides toward being able to operate a functioning country and keep the peace without thousands of American troops.

Since the Basra assault began Tuesday, violence has spread to Shiite districts of Baghdad and other places in Iraq where Shiite militiamen hold sway, raising fears that security gains often attributed to a yearlong American troop buildup could be at risk. Any widespread breakdown of a cease-fire called by Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who founded the Mahdi Army, could bring the country right back to the sectarian violence that racked it in 2006 and 2007.

There are many things that must be considered in regards to this series of events:

-How this affects the locals, many of whom already distrust the leadership of the current Prime Minister
-How this affects our military, troop actions, and withdrawls or increased numbers of troops
-And how this could influence the Presidential elections in regards to what candidates say they might or might not do to handle these kinds of situations in Iraq should they continue.

We’ll be sure to stay abreast of the situation, and report more as it plays out.

Popularity: 2% [?]