and does not have to be linked with the rest of the Report. Bush and his adulators hate the ISG Report because it is from Jim Baker and therefore from Daddy. Rice has rejected out of hand negotiating with Syria and Iran and, bit by bit, Bush is squeezing out rejections from any "expert" he can find of various other items in the Report. I do not think the electorate voted in November to stay the course, or even to stay the course with a few photo-op tweakings of that course. I sincerely hope the Democrats remember this and fight Bush tooth and claw, instead of tamely deferring to the executive. Again.

The American people should start speaking up for the ISG Report (even those who dislike its recommendations about Israel and Palestine)

The first thing Bush did was bring a panel of experts to the White House, three military and two civilian, all of whom opposed the report.  There were plenty of other military and civilian experts available who say the report's on target, but he wasn't interested in hearing their opinions.  The articles I read about the meeting stated that he and Cheney focused on General Keane's recommendation that we send in more troops to "stabilize" Baghdad and Anbar province, while ignoring General McCaffrey's opposition.  Cheney was described as taking copious notes whenever he heard what he liked.  So you're right.  I anticipate that immediately after the holidays Bush is going to announce a force of between 20,000 to 50,000 troops to go to Baghdad to make it more "secure".  Meanwhile, we have General Schoomaker's blunt reply yesterday to the question of infusing more troops into Iraq that "we should not surge without a purpose, and that purpose should be measurable and get us something."

Bush can't accept reality, and is doing all he can to avoid the perception that we're losing the war in Iraq, as if it was ever ours to win. There's been no real shift in WH views, with most policies, and their politics, emanating from Rove's office. It's all so transparent. I like the idea that Senators are visiting Damascus like The Palm restaurant! Two more years of death and instability while the American president fiddles around with failed policies. Can the world stand it?

for two more years, nor can the United States afford it: financially, militarily, politically. If we had a parliamentary system of government, Bush would have been history after the November elections. But we do not, so we are stuck with what we have, and the policies can be changed ONLY if the incoming Democratic Congress gets on its hind legs and demands Bush really change course... and the only available plan for that is the ISG Report.

It is time for the blogs and the general public to start making noise. So what if the Israeli lobby, or the oil lobby, or whatever, do not like this or that part of the recommendations. As Mr. Baker said, the Report is not a fruit salad and no cherry-picking should be allowed. Put up or shut up, demand the Report be implemented.

With every day tht passes, America's options shrink. We keep ditzing along as if the deisions are all on our side. That is a delusion.

Is that no one in the media is pointing out how Bush and company are skittering away from this report.  They let Bush's advisory group blah-blah all the talk shows last week without ever asking them why their opinions made more sense than the opinions or conclusions of the ISG report.  For instance, HOW is sending 20,000 or 30,000 or more troops into Baghdad supposed to change things?  What would those 20,000 troops be doing?  I keep hearing it described as "provide security", or "increase patrols".  How does that help?  How many more checkpoints do you need before the balance tips and the city is suddenly and permanantly more secure?  How many patrols by how many soldiers will cause the insurgents and the Shiite/Sunni partisans to give up and go home?  Should we invade Sadr City and take the Mahdi
Army on head-on?  Didn't we already do that once and did it do anything for us in the long run?  We supposedly had Moqtada al-Sadr in our sights and decided not to do him in.  Are we going to try to kill him this time?  How are we supposed to prop up the government when 30 seats are held by al-Sadr's people and they're a huge source of the violence plaguing the city? 

I haven't heard any of the media types asking these questions of the anti-ISG Report crowd.  Well if those guys have better ideas, shouldn't we know the details?  The media's not even giving any equal time to the proponents of the report or its conclusions.

for Baker and other members of the ISG, and we do that by calling the television talking head shows and kick up some sand (ad maybe some a**.

The Post has had surveys, one on 13 December, which showed that 52% of those polled said America was losing the war; 70% disapproved of the way Bush is handling Iraq. When voters were presented with specific proposals from the ISG Report, large majorities agreed with them: 1) Change the US Army's primary mission to training; 2) withdraw almost all US combat forces by early 2008; 3) reduce US support if the Iraqis do not make progress. Also, 58% felt the US should hold talks with Syria, and 57% felt the US should hold talks with Iran.

In other words, the American voters are in agreement with the ISG Report and disagree entirely with the apparent course of action advocated by Bush, Cheney, and Rice. This should give the Democrats backbone to oppose the President, and encourage the pundit-talkers to listen favorably to those who agree with the ISG.

whenever I read something like this, I have to wonder just what the hell we're dealing with
http://www.truthout....

the Truthout article by Robert Parry is based on Mr. Parry's extensive rearch into the Bush family history, which he investigated thoroughly when he began taking a look at the Iran Contra scandals. He writes for consortiumnews.com, and is the author of two books about the Bush family machinations.

While I am reluctant to join the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who see treachery under every, ah, bush, Mr. Parry has done some persuasive reasearch. If you follow the threads, Iraq and the so-called War on Terror really are linked together with the cruel kleptomaniac right-wing Latin American dictatorships of the 1970's and the "cold war" against communism.

The interlocking directorates (including Rumsfeld and Gates), the Carlysle Soiety and the war profiteering, even the administrative incompetence of the draft-dodging cadet Bush come together.  This cabal can be held responsible for fomenting wars, using torture as national policy in country after country, and, in effect, looting America and as much of the rest of the world as they can manage. They get away with it. Meet your new masters, the rising barons of corporate feudalism. 

was the signal to start bashing the ISG report. Then the select committee meetings started in the WH, all for getting the strategy in place to kill the ISG report for Bush to continue his war profiteering. This family started in 1917 to make their money from wars and it is continuing into this century. Everyone keeps asking why did we go there in the first place. It they would stop and think it is not hard to understand, war profiteering. In a previous posting on WWII and FDR some one wrote about that banks were the main group behind the wars and this family knows how to make money from it. Personally it sounds like treason to me and I hope some one uncovers the truth soon and ends this war now.

I keep asking myself "there have been so many blunders, how could so many happen unless they were deliberate". Blunder after blunder and now they are trying to set McCain up for 2008 by adding more troops. As sure as I am that they knew what they were doing when they got us into this war, they know how to get us out tomorrow if they really wanted too. The problem is no one is yelling loud enough. Just maybe these letters will be the camel that breaks their back. I keep holding my breath that the 110th will have the guts and knowledge to defeat them once they are sworn in. I hope the country has elected enough Veterans into this 110th and they know how to push and break this dynasty of corruptness.

The send off yesterday of Rumsfeld proves that he did exactly what Bush wanted him to do and they beat the drums for him as his reward for carring out the blunders as ordered by Bush and the rest of the neocons. Heck of a job Rummy.

in the previous report that all my information came from stories on the internet which insinuates war profiteering in every war since 1917.

was, as I seem to remember, the name of a bitter expose of how we fell into World War I, beginning with the naval arms race and the building of dreadnaught battleships. The assassination of the Austrian ArchBuke at Sarajevo provided an excuse to burn up money in munitions and armaments (never mind burning up the lives of a whole generation).  Like other such decisions, unintended consequences went much further than the sly and greedy arms manufacturers (who had connections across international boundaries, so they all made money from both sides) expected. But hey, they still made money.

With the war mobilization conducted under the supervision of the War Industries Board, U.S. consumers and taxpayers showered unprecedented fortunes on war producers and certain holders of raw materials and patents. Hearings in 1934 by the committee of U.S. Senator Gerald Nye attacked the "Merchants of Death" -- war profiteers such as Remington Arms and the British Vickers company --whose salesmen had manipulated many nations into wars, and then supplied all sides with the weapons to fight them.
Percy Rockefeller and Samuel Pryor's Remington Arms supplied machine guns and Colt automatic pistols; millions of rifles to Czarist Russia; over half of the small-arms ammunition used by the Anglo-American allies in World War I; and 69 percent of the rifles used by the United States in that conflict.@s4
Samuel Bush's wartime relationship to these businessmen would continue after the war, and would especially aid his son Prescott's career of service to the Harrimans.
Most of the records and correspondence of Samuel Bush's arms- related section of the government have been burned, "to save space" in the National Archives. This matter of destroyed or misplaced records should be of concern to citizens of a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, it is a rather constant impediment with regard to researching George Bush's background: He is certainly the most "covert" American chief executive.
Now, arms production in wartime is by necessity carried on with great security precautions. The public need not know details of the private lives of the government or industry executives involved, and a broad interrelationship between government and private-sector personnel is normal and useful.
But during the period preceding World War I, and in the war years 1914-1917 when the U.S. was still neutral, interlocking Wall Street financiers subservient to British strategy lobbied heavily, and twisted U.S. government and domestic police functions. Led by the J.P. Morgan concern, Britain's overall purchasing agent in America, these financiers wanted a world war and they wanted the United States in it as Britain's ally. The U.S. and British arms companies, owned by these international financiers, poured out weapons abroad in deals not subject to the scrutiny of any electorate back home. The same gentlemen, as we shall see, later supplied weapons and money to Hitler's Nazis.
That this problem persists today, is in some respect due to the "control" over the documentation and the history of the arms traffickers.
World War I was a disaster for civilized humanity. It had terrible, unprecedented casualties, and shattering effects on the moral philosophy of Europeans and Americans.
But for a brief period, the war treated Prescott Bush rather well.
In June, 1918, just as his father took over responsibility for relations of the government with the private arms producers, Prescott went to Europe with the U.S. Army. His unit did not come near any fire until September. But on August 8, 1918, the following item appeared on the front page of Bush's home-town newspaper:
High Military Honors Conferred on Capt. Bush
For Notable Gallantry, When Leading Allied Commanders Were Endangered, Local Man is Awarded French, English and U.S. Crosses.
International Honors, perhaps unprecedented in the life of an American soldier, have been conferred upon Captain Prescott Sheldon Bush, son of Mr. and Mrs. S.P. Bush of Columbus.
Upon young Bush ... were conferred: Cross of the Legion of Honor, ... Victoria Cross, ... Distinguished Service Cross....
Conferring of the three decorations upon one man at one time implies recognition of a deed of rare valor and probably of great military importance as well.
From word which has reached Columbus during the last few days, it appears as if the achievement of Captain Bush well measures up to these requirements.
The incident occurred on the western front about the time the Germans were launching their great offensive of July 15.... The history of the remarkable victory scored later by the allies might have been written in another vein, but for the heroic and quick action of Captain Bush.
The ... three allied leaders, Gen. [Ferdinand] Foch, Sir Douglas Haig and Gen. [John J.] Pershing ... were making an inspection of American positions. Gen. Pershing had sent for Captain Bush to guide them about one sector.... Suddenly Captain Bush noticed a shell coming directly for them. He shouted a warning, suddenly drew his bolo knife, stuck it up as he would a ball bat, and parried the blow, causing the shell to glance off to the right....
Within 24 hours young Bush was notified ... [that] the three allied commanders had recommended him for practically the highest honors within their gift.... Captain Bush is 23 years old, a graduate of Yale in the class of 1917. He was one of Yale's best- known athletes ... was leader of the glee club ... and in his senior year was elected to the famous Skull and Bones Society....@s5
The day after this astonishing story appeared, there was a large cartoon on the editorial page. It depicted Prescott Bush as a small boy, reading a story-book about military heroism, and saying: "Gee! I wonder if anything like that could ever truly happen to a boy." The caption below was a rehash of the batting- away- the-deadly-shell exploit, written in storybook style.@s6
Local excitement about the military "Babe Ruth" lasted just four weeks. Then this somber little box appeared on the front page:
Editor State Journal:
A cable received from my son, Prescott S. Bush, brings word that he has not been decorated, as published in the papers a month ago. He feels dreadfully troubled that a letter, written in a spirit of fun, should have been misinterpreted. He says he is no hero and asks me to make explanations. I will appreciate your kindness in publishing this letter....
Flora Sheldon Bush.
Columbus, Sept. 5.@s7
Prescott Bush later claimed that he spent "about 10 or 11 weeks" in the area of combat in France. "We were under fire there.... It was quite exciting, and of course a wonderful experience." @s8
Prescott Bush was discharged in mid-1919, and returned for a short time to Columbus, Ohio. But his humiliation in his home town was so intense that he could no longer live there. The "war hero" story was henceforth not spoken of in his presence. Decades later, when he was an important, rich U.S. Senator, the story was whispered and puzzled over among the Congressmen.
Looking to be rescued from this ugly situation, Captain Bush went to the 1919 reunion of his Yale class in New Haven, Connecticut. Skull and Bones Patriarch Wallace Simmons, closely tied to the arms manufacturers, offered Prescott Bush a job in his St. Louis railroad equipment company. Bush took the offer and moved to St. Louis--and his destiny.
The rest of the story can be found at:

  http://www.tarpley.n...

is the only way to describe Gordie's comment, and we thank Gordie for sharing it. That still leaves us with the question: how can we force Bush to acknowledge the ISG Report, much less implement it. Simply setting up the time line, separate from any other part of the Report, would be a nice start toward accountability in Iraq. The way we're going, Bush will completely bypass the November elections and escape accountability yet again.