IRAQI REFUGEES GIVE LIE TO BUSH'S SPIN ON "PROGRESS"

Apparently Bush is satisfied with "progress" being made in Iraq after meeting with Petraeus and Al Maliki on a highly fortified air base in Anbar Province.

If things are so rosy, and if there has been so much discernible progress, how come Syria just announces that it will demand Iraqis have or obtain visas before being allowed to cross into Syria? About 50,000 Iraqis leave Iraq monthly, looking to escape the all-encompassing violence and shootings.

Reports the BBC:

"Syria will require visas from Iraqis wishing to enter the country for trade, economic or educational purposes from September, Iraqi officials have said . . ."

"The UN refugee agency says 1.4 million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria. With the number increasing by an estimated 30,000 every month, Syria's health and education systems are struggling to cope."

You would think that "progress" would be apparent to these refugees before they flee Iraq, and give them some hope about staying put in their own country. But no, the exodus continues, thus giving the lie to Bush's transparent spin. And who would know better about "progress" that the Iraqis who come to the decision that it is not safe living and staying in Iraq.

If Bush thinks there has been progress, then let him stay in Iraq for more than a few hours. Oh, and tell him he can't stay within the confines of the Green Zone or on some highly fortified air force base.

BUSH/CHENEY TAKE AIM AT IRAN; LIBERMAN MAKES CASE FOR WAR

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borg write today in The Guardian that Cheney is winning the debate in the administration on striking Iran before the Bush/Cheney cabal is out of office in January 2009. This is serious stuff. Bush is crazy and stubborn enough to start another war against Iran, no matter what the consequences for world peace for the next hundred years.

If this is not bad enough, Think Progress points to a Senate resolution passed 97-0 last Wednesday. Sponsored principally by Joe Lieberman, it calls upon Iran to stop killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Lieberman claims he has the "evidence." He says that Gen. Kevin Bergner, formerly White House aide to Bush and now principal military spokesman in Iraq, knows that Iran is sending fighters to kill Americans in Iraq. Here's a few paragraphs from Lieberman's amendment 2073 from the Senate record. Keep in mind that no one in the Senate had the courage to stand up and say that the "evidence" is non-existent and that the Iranian connection is just spin from Bush and Cheney to advance their casus belli against a non-Arab Islamic nation.

"The fact is that for months and months now, our military commanders and diplomats have been telling us about a proxy war the Iranians have been waging against our soldiers, other coalition forces, and our allies in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces, and others, have spoken bluntly and publicly and I would say repeatedly about how the Iranian Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Guard Force, has been training, arming, funding, equipping, and directing the extremists in Iraq, terrorists who then go back into Iraq and attack our troops. This past February, senior military officials of ours in Baghdad described forensic evidence that implicated Iran at that time in the deaths of at least 170 American service members, and one may assume that the number has gone up significantly since then. That is 170 American service members killed as a result of the involvement of Iran through Iraqi terrorist allies in Iraq; lost lives of Americans as a result of what Iran and its proxies are doing.

"Last week, the United States military spokesman for the Multi-National Force Iraq, BG Kevin Bergner, presented new and I think stunning details about Iran's complicity in deadly attacks against our service members. I present this resolution to say to our military, at the beginning: We hear you, but also say to the Iranians: We see what you are doing and we are simply not going to accept it.

"The fact is, the previous warnings that have been given, and disclosures given by our military about Iranian involvement in Iraq, in some sense have drifted up into the media air which is so cluttered with so much else from the Middle East, from Iraq--so much controversy that it seems to not have settled into the collective consciousness of Members of Congress, let alone the American people, about what Iran is doing to our soldiers, our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our friends, our neighbors.

"It is time for the Senate to say to Iran: We know what you are doing. It is time for you to stop it."

Again, where is a voice from Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama protesting this fictitious story about Iran? How about Sen. Feingold or Sen. Webb or any of the other 50 Democrats in the Senate? Sen. Reid, how could you go along with this war monger Lieberman and preposterous dangerous story?

DELUSIONAL BUSH THINKS FIGHT IN IRAQ CAN BE "WON"

Al Jazeera reports today that Nuri Al-Maliki is upset with human rights violations of U.S. troops. Al-Maliki is also reported at odds with Gen. David Petraeus who he accuses of taking an American point of view with regard to the problems in Iraq.

"An adviser to Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, has accused US forces of committing human rights violations and arming "gangs of killers."

"Hassan al-Suneid, a member of parliament, on Saturday also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with General David Petraeus, the chief US commander in Iraq.

"He said US troops have embarrassed the Iraqi government and that General Petraeus was working along a "purely American vision."

"Al-Suneid said the US military strategy is to "arm whoever is against al-Qaeda at a time when there are gangs against al-Qaeda that kill. These are gangs of killers."


"He was referring to US overtures to groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former anti-government fighters to join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq."

So how does this square with Bush's vision that "we are making progress in Iraq"? No matter how bad the situation in Iraq gets, no matter how many people are killed in car bombings, no matter how many human rights violations occur, Bush remains upbeat and optimistic. Either Bush is a consummate liar or else he is like the boy in the Dutch fairy tale who tries to keep out the North Sea by plugging his finger in the ocean dike.

Here's Deb Reichmann in The Washington Post on Bush's Saturday radio speech:

"Bush acknowledged the Iraqis received "unsatisfactory" marks on eight benchmarks, including failure to prepare for local elections or to pass a law to share oil revenues among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. But the president said "satisfactory" grades the Iraqis received in eight other areas - like providing three Iraqi brigades for the military offensive under way and providing $10 billion of their money for reconstruction - were cause for optimism.


"Our strategy is built on the premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This report shows that conditions can change, progress can be made, and the fight in Iraq can be won.""

So Bush believes there is "cause for optimism." Has he talked to Al-Maliki today about "human rights violations" committed by U.S. troops? Has he discussed with both Al-Maliki and Petraeus why they don't seem to be getting along? If Al-Maliki is not on the same page as that erstwhile saviour Petraeus, what hope is there for anyone including Bush thinking that "the fight in Iraq can be won"?

Oh, by the way, what in the wide world can Bush mean by "winning the fight in Iraq"?

HARRY REID CALLS PACE AND PETRAEUS INCOMPETENT

After Sen. Harry Reid criticized both Peter Pace and David Petraeus for their incompetence, the White House responded with Tony Snow implying that it was unpatriotic to criticize generals during a "time of war."

Anne Flaherty writes for AP:

"Said White House spokesman Tony Snow: "In a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq."
Added Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee: "Harry Reid doesn't understand that there are some lines you just don't cross.""

Here we go again with the same old line that if you criticize Bush or one of his flunkies, you get slimed and almost labeled a traitor. So, what's the difference between Hugo Chavez shutting down a TV station because he could not tolerate the criticism, and George Bush having his henchmen call Harry Reid "outrageous" for "issuing slanders towards the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?" Bush is just as bad as those autocrats who think they are not subject to criticism, and who respond in an inappropriate way.