Posts

Have they earned it ?The Bush Administration ramped up its offensive against critics of its latest plan for the war in Iraq. The leader of attack dogs, Vice President Cheney, came out with harsh words. He is good at that -- harsh words and in painting doomsday scenarios if we raise questions about the war that they got us into. Step back a little. As reported in CNN, this is the same man who on May 31, 2005, said: "...... "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." On that day, dealth toll for American soldiers stood at 1070. The current number is 3064 (Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties); 1994 soldiers lost their lives since the vice president's statement. The man who took five deferments during the Vietnam war drools about Iraq. The warmongers are ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans no longer believes in their war.Calvin Trillin in The Nation June 16, 2005: When rockets fly and battle smoke is thick,It's good to hear from "Four Deferments Dick."He's always sure. He knows what warfare is--Enough to know it's not for him or his.Insurgents somehow, though they're in the throes,Kill more GIs--but no one Cheney knows.*The "War President"As the late C.E. Montague, British soldier, author, journalist, said: "War hath no fury like a noncombatant".President Bush, July 2, 2003: "Bring Them On" (2857 soldiers have died since then).President Bush, Feb.8, 2004, NBC Meet the Press: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is.

Panic in Bushland. What next for the Decider ? He tried -- again -- to sell continuation of his war and the troop surge by talking about threats. The usual suspects, the tried and tested bogies were mentioned. It worked for him in the past. Last night he failed miserably. Funny in a way when you think of President Bush talking about health care and the need for energy conservation. But he did. Desperate times call for desperate means. He was grasping at straws to bail himself out. Not many were fooled. It was Jim Webb, the Democrtatic Senator from Virginia, whose rebuttal made an impact. Rebuttal to the State of the Union speech often fell flat and soon forgotten. Jim Webb will be remembered for his words and for his delivery.Michael Shear in the Washington PostSen. James Webb, D-Va., delivered a forceful nine-minute response to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night, promising an aggressive challenge to Bush's Iraq and economic policies from the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress.Speaking live from a historic Capitol Hill meeting room, Webb displayed the same blunt manner that won over Virginia voters in November and later generated headlines after a face-to-face exchange with Bush at the White House.Webb accused the president of taking the country into Iraq "recklessly" and forcing it to endure "a mismanaged war for nearly four years."The full transcriptFrom NY Times editorial:The White House spin ahead of George W. Bush’s seventh State of the Union address was that the president would make a bipartisan call to revive his domestic agenda with “bold and innovative concepts.” The problem with that was obvious last night — in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country.Combined with the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, that makes boldness and innovation impossible unless Mr. Bush truly changes course. And he gave no hint of that last night. Instead, he offered up a tepid menu of ideas that would change little: a health insurance notion that would make only a tiny dent in a huge problem. More promises about cutting oil consumption with barely a word about global warming. And the same lip service about immigration reform on which he has failed to deliver."Speaking into a Void"We were bluffed and bullied into suporting the war. This time we must not let him get away with it.Dan Balz in the PostThe State of the President BeleagueredThere were three underlying messages in the president's address. The first was a familiar argument about the terrorist threat and plea for patience on Iraq, a chord struck earlier in the day by Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the expected new commander of U.S. forces there. Although about two in three Americans disagree with the decision to send more troops to Iraq and members of Congress are preparing nonbinding resolutions to declare their opposition, Bush asked for time to show that the strategy can succeed.He recalled that the country was largely united at the time of the invasion in 2003 and acknowledged the divisions that have emerged since. But he argued that whatever motivated members of Congress at the time of the invasion, there was a consensus that the United States must win the war.Bush may have been speaking into the void. Over the past six months, there has been a critical turn in public opinion. Long ago, a majority of Americans concluded that the president's decision to go to war was a mistake. The administration tried to shrug that off by focusing attention on the consequences of failure, believing that as long as Americans saw some chance for success they would continue to support the mission.

May 1, 2003. That was when President Bush appeared on the deck of the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Above him, the tower of the carrier displayed a large sign that read "Mission Accomplished". The "Mission" was Iraq. Now, almost 45 months later, as the president's latest strategy for victory by a surge in number of troops is underway, publication of "A BBC International opinion poll" reveals what the world thinks. There is very little in it to make us feel good but we can take consolation from the fact that the opinions are a reflection on the Bush Administration and its policies, not the American people.View of US's global role 'worse' (BBC)The view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests.The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington had dealt with Iraq.The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas had been handled.The poll, released ahead of President Bush's State of the Union speech, was conducted between November and January.The number of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18 nations polled in previous years.In those countries, 29% of people said the US had a positive influence, down from 36% last year and 40% two years ago.Across the 25 countries polled, 49% of respondents said the US played a mainly negative role in the world.In Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines and the US most of those polled said they thought America had a positive role.But among Americans, the number of those who viewed their country's role positively fell to 57% - six percentage points down from last year and 14 percentage points down from two years ago.Mid-East roleRespondents were also asked about the Bush administration's handling of six areas of foreign policy: The war in Iraq: an average of 73% of respondents disapproved (57% in the US). Disapproval was strongest in Argentina and France, while people in Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines were more likely to approve. Detainees in Guantanamo: 67% disapproved (50% in the US). Backing for America on this issue was highest in Nigeria, where 49% approved. Israeli-Hezbollah war: Washington's role met with approval from respondents in Nigeria and Philippines, but on average 65% disapproved across the 25 countries (50% in the US). Iran's nuclear programme: again, support for US actions appeared strongest in Kenya (62%), Nigeria (53%) and the Philippines (52%). But, overall 60% of respondents disapproved (50% in the US). Global warming: more than 80% of respondents in Argentina, France and Germany disapproved compared to 56% overall (54% in the US). But the White House had 50% or more support among those polled in Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines and South Korea. North Korea's nuclear programme: opposition to US policy was strongest among respondents in Argentina and Brazil. On average across the 25 countries 54% disapproved (43% in the US). When asked about US military presence in the Middle East, an average of 68% of respondents across the 25 countries answered that it "provokes more conflict than it prevents".SEE THE FULL SURVEYA second report in the BBC analyses the findings of the poll. 'Listen more' is world's message to US

THE END OF THE WARHe came at midnight, both legs lopped off,though his old wounds had long since healed.He came through the third-story window--I was struck with wonder at how he got in.We'd lived though an age of calamity;many had lost their closest kin.In streets sown with shredded papersthe orphan survivors were skipping about.I was frozen as crystal when he came.He thawed me like pliant wax,altered me even as the pall of nightturns into the feather of dawn.His bold spirit translucent as mistthat streams from the morning clouds.---Dahlia Ravikovitch(Translated, from the Hebrew, by Chana Bloch and Chana Kronfeld)©The New Yorker Dec.25,2006 & JAN 1,2007President Bush will read a speech tomorrow evening. In the past his State of the Union addresses were received with almost manic enthusiasm by Republicans in Congress. They basked in the pomp and circumstances. Props were used by the White House. Ahmed Chalabi, who had played an important role in creating the myth about Saddam Hussein's WMD, was among the honored guests after the invasion began. Then Chalabi fell from grace. Props there will be but things have changed. The president's policy about Iraq no longer enjoys credibility. Worse, by a wide margin Americans consider him as being unable to steer the country in the right direction.Death toll for soldiers is now at 3055, including 54 in this month. Visit Glenn Kutler's audio commenary (including photo gallery) in Newsweek.Confidence in Bush Leadership at All-Time Low, Poll FindsWashington PostPresident Bush will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday at the weakest point of his presidency, facing deep public dissatisfaction over his Iraq war policies and eroding confidence in his leadership, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.With a major confrontation between Congress and the president brewing over Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly oppose Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the conflict. By wide margins they prefer that congressional Democrats, who now hold majorities in both chambers, rather than the president, take the lead in setting the direction for the country.Iraq dominates the national agenda, with 48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year. No other issue rises out of single digits. The poll also finds that the public trusts congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent.

Rest your Weary Feet; Feast your EyesThe pleasures of walking on trails include rest stops for picnics. While one can always find a grassy knoll or meadow to enjoy the view with some food and wine, on some trails the benches and picnic tables can take you by surprise. I always feel a sense of gratitude and admiration for those who paid for them and for those who built them.Long Ridge, one of the trails in the Stevens Creek and Upper Stevens Creek County Parks managed by the County of Santa Clara, has some benches that offer great views. The benches themselves look as if they belong there.Roderic F. Annable Bench @ MusafirView, Looking West @MusafirThe Plaque @ MusafirThe Leonard I. Schiff Bench @ MusafirView, Looking West @ MusafirThe Plaque @ Musafir"Lover of this land and the stars above", Leonard Schiff served as Chairman of Stanford's Physics Department from 1948 to 1966. He died in 1971. Didn't have the pleasure of meeting Mr. Schiff but the plaque tells me that he was a kindred spirit. Don't think he was a Republican. Hard to think of Republicans as lovers of open space. Yes, there are a few like former Congressman Pete McCloskey and perhaps Tom Campbell. But for every Pete McCloskey one is likely to find a dozen Richard Pombos.Distant view, Wallace Stegner Bench @ MusafirBorn in Iowa, Wallace Stegner joined Stanford University in 1945 and lived in Los Altos Hills until his death in 1993."Stegner's novel Angle of Repose won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1972, and was directly based on the letters of Mary Hallock Foote (later published as the memoir A Victorian Gentlewoman in the Far West). Stegner's use of uncredited passages taken directly from Foote's letters caused a minor controversy[2]. Stegner also won the National Book Award for The Spectator Bird in 1977. He refused a National Medal from the National Endowment for the Arts in 1992 due to his opposition to the way the NEA had become politicized in the late 1980s." Source: WikipediaClose up, Wallace Stegner Bench @ MusafirMade of rocks, it looks attractive but as I sat on the Stegner bench on a sunny afternoon in January I thought it was cold. Took a while to feel comfortable. In summer the bench would be blazing hot. Perhaps MROSD, which put up the Stegner Bench, wanted it to last for a long time; the wooden benches have a more limited life cycle.View from Wallace Stegner Bench @ MusafirThe plaque reads:"...to try to save for everyone, for the hostile and indifferent as well as the committed, some of the health that flows across the green ridges from the Skyline, and some of the beauty and refreshment of spirit that are still available to any resident of the valley who has the moment, and the wit, to lift up his eyes unto the hills." - Wallace Stegner

Impressive achievement. Congress passed a reform package that is not quite foolproof but it has teeth, enough teeth to put a crimp in the unhealthy relationship that existed between elected representatives and the lobbying industry. As expected, Republicans tried to lessen the impact by amendments but failed. The strong message from voters in the mid-term elections made them leery of being too aggressive in blocking passage of the legislation.How things have changed ! It was a year ago on January 18, 2006, that Jeffrey Birnbaum wrote in the Washington Post about the then Speaker Hastert's proposal for lobbyist-friendly reform legislation:"According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington."One can say goodbye to all that. The reform legislation passed by Senate is quite different. It is a big step toward transparency and curbing of corrupt practices. Although, in recent years, it was the Republicans who completely sold themselves to special interest groups, some Democrats were willing participants in sharing the freebies.The Senate legislation, hailed by proponents as the most significant ethics reform since Watergate, would ban gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists, and would force lawmakers to attach their names to special-interest provisions and pet projects that they slip into bills. Lawmakers would have to pay charter rates on corporate jets, not the far-cheaper first-class rates they pay now.The House earlier this month approved similar language as part of an internal rules change. But other portions of the Senate-passed measure would carry the weight of law and would have impacts far beyond the Capitol. The House would have to pass comparable legislation for those provisions to take effect.One of those legislative provisions would force lobbyists to publicly disclose the small campaign donations they collect from clients and "bundle" into large donations to politicians. Bundling is a way for lobbyists to contribute far more money to candidates and thus wield more influence than they could by making individual contributions, which are currently limited to $2,100 per candidate for each election cycle. Lavish gatherings thrown by lobbyists and corporate interests at party conventions would be banned.State of the UnionIn other news, the great Decider is reported to be polishing up the State of the Union speech that he will read on Tuesday, January 23. It could include initiatives for energy and health care ! The main thrust, of course, will be to promote his latest plan for Iraq, a disaster that he and the necons created and very successfully sold to the nation. But those of you who will follow the telecast are likely to notice something different. I could be wrong but I doubt that the Republicans will bob up and down from their seats like marionettes every time the president ends a sentence. The war has taken its toll. They have lost their enthusiasm for the lies. Their constitutents sent them a strong message last November. They will be restrained in their applause. Old habits,however, die hard. Reflex action ?A Reality-Based State of the UnionA president who reduces the near-infinite variety of humankind to "with us" or "against us" has mired the nation in a disastrous, unnecessary war. Comparisons to Vietnam are imprecise -- the American casualties in Iraq are lower, the geopolitical stakes are much higher and the damage to our nation's standing in the world has been incalculable.Some believe that the president sees clearly the futility of his ill-advised war and that at this point he's just stalling so his successor will take the fall for an eventual American withdrawal. Those cynics are wrong; George W. Bush has demonstrated time and again that he values resolve over reason.The us-or-them president is now assuming an elbows-out posture toward Iran that is disturbingly reminiscent of the run-up to war in Iraq -- denunciations, threats, a military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Haven't we seen this movie before?

Weiji, "Cris-atunity" and IraqGlenn Kessler's report from Riyadh in the Washington Post contains interesting nuggets about opinions held by Saudi Arabian foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, an influential voice in the Arab world. Secretary Rice threw in a comment about weiji, the Chinese term for crisis but an article in NY Times tells us that she was wrong.What Secretary Rice said:"I don't read Chinese but I am told that the Chinese character for crisis is weiji, which means both danger and opportunity," Rice said. "And I think that states it very well. We'll try to maximize the opportunity."Rice did not say where she learned this aphorism but oddly enough it was once featured on "The Simpsons," as this excerpt from an episode shows:Lisa: "Look on the bright side, Dad. Did you know that the Chinese use the same word for 'crisis' as they do for 'opportunity'?"Homer: "Yes! Cris-atunity." * From New York Times, Reading File: December 18, 2005By Any Other NameOn pinyin.info, a Web site about the Chinese language, Victor H. Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of Pennsylvania, explodes the myth that "crisis," in Chinese means both "danger" and "opportunity."A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate formulation. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, ... often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for "thinking outside of the box" and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. ...Like most Mandarin words, that for "crisis" (weiji) consists of two syllables that are written with two separate characters, wei and ji. The ji of weiji, in fact, means something like "incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes)." Thus, a weiji is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A weiji indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits. In a crisis, one wants above all to save one's skin and neck! Washington PostRegarding Bush's plan, Saud was distinctly tepid. He said that he supports "the objectives" of the plan -- i.e., an end to violence and a stable government -- but he made no mention of the specific details. Indeed, when questioned on whether he supports the details, Saud shrugged off the question. Reporters knew that Rice, who arrived in Riyadh at 8 p.m. on Monday, had stayed up until 2:30 a.m. in a visit to the king's hunting camp. She then also had morning meetings. But Saud said there was not enough time to discuss the details of a plan that Bush had outlined in a 20-minute speech. * Then, Saud unexpectedly allowed another round of questions. Asked what he would do if Bush's plan does not succeed, Saud skillfully sounded a positive note -- "why speculate on such dire consequences?" -- while offering a devastating description of the situation in Iraq."Why not speculate on the positive side that everybody will come together and hopefully move out of the morass that exists in Iraq which serves nobody -- Shiites or Sunnis or Turkmen or Kurds. It serves no one," Saud said. "It serves no neighboring country, no regional power and no international power."

Numbing. Explosions in Baghdad resulted in deaths of 80 or more people today. Most of the casualties took place near al-Mustansriya university, a Shia neighborhood. Retaliatory attacks cannot be too long in coming.35,000 civilian deaths in 2006The Guardian reports that according to the UN, Kirkuk in Northern Iraq is facing imminent outbreak of violence that could make it another Baghdad. This time the Kurds are responsible for atrocities against ethnic minorities. Kurdish Peshmerga forces are a part of the President Bush's strategy to quell violence in Baghdad. Talk about strange bedfellows and winning hearts and minds!UN warns of looming crisis in KirkukMark TranTuesday January 16, 2007Guardian UnlimitedThe deteriorating human rights situation in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq could be a prelude to a looming crisis in the Kurdish region, the UN warned today.In its bi-monthly human rights report on Iraq, the UN voiced concerns at reports of mistreatment of ethnic Turkmen and Arabs by the Kurdish majority."They face increasing threats, intimidations and detentions, often in KRG (Kurdish regional government) facilities run by Kurdish intelligence and security forces," the report said. "Such violations may well be the prelude of a looming crisis in Kirkuk in the coming months."While media attention has focused on Baghdad, which accounts for most of Iraq's bloodletting, Kirkuk could be lurching towards its own mini-crisis.Kirkuk, an ancient city once part of the Ottoman empire, has a large minority of ethnic Turks as well as Christians, Shias and Sunnis, Armenians and Assyrians. The city lies just south of the autonomous Kurdish region stretching across Iraq's north-east.Under Iraq's new constitution, a local referendum is to be held this year to determine whether Kirkuk should join the Kurdistan regional confederacy (the united administration of Irbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniya provinces). Because of its oil wealth, the Kurds covet the city and want it to become their regional capital.It is a prospect that horrifies Turkey, which fears that a strong Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq with Kirkuk's oil wealth would galvanise separatist Kurdish guerrillas in Turkey who have been fighting since 1984 for autonomy.Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, today warned Iraqi Kurdish groups against trying to seize control of Kirkuk. He said Turkey would not stand by amid growing ethnic tensions, prompting accusations of interference by Iraqi Kurds.The Kurdish coalition bloc in the Iraqi parliament today read a statement during a session accusing Turkey of interfering in Iraqi affairs. "As we condemn this interference in Iraqi affairs by the Turkish government, we call upon the parliament to issue a statement condemning them as well," the coalition bloc said.But Mr Erdogan this week reminded the Kurds that Turkey sheltered more than 500,000 Iraqi Kurdish refugees who escaped Iraq's ruthless campaign following a failed Kurdish insurgency in early 1991."Turkey did not remain indifferent to the plight of Kurdish peshmergas who were escaping oppression and death," he said. "Today, it will not remain indifferent to the Turkmens, Arabs ... in Kirkuk."Military intervention by Turkey, a Nato ally of the US in northern Iraq, is unlikely, but Ankara could apply economic pressure as potential oil exports from Kirkuk have to go overland through Turkey.Today's UN report said Kirkuk is heavily controlled by security forces and Kurdish militias - or peshmergas - who exercise to a large degree effective control of the city. Most senior official positions are occupied by Kurds or their allies from other ethnic groups.Under Saddam Hussein, Baghdad imposed an "Arabisation" policy on Kirkuk, a massive social engineering project that drove many Kurds from their homes to be replaced by Arabs, mostly Shias from the south. Since the US invasion of 2003, many Kurds have returned and Turkmen and Arabs in the city now complain of reverse "ethnic cleansing"."Even though violence is not on the same level as in Baghdad," the UN said, "ongoing human rights violations and the surge of violent acts which have significantly increased since 2003 are widely believed to be the doing of perpetrators and instigators from inside and outside Iraq and Kirkuk. Lately and due to the continuing insecurity, ethnic groups have moved closer to their own communities for protection."With tension rising in Kirkuk, the referendum is shaping up to be a key moment for the Kurdish region. The Iraq Study Group, chaired by former secretary of state James Baker, warned last month in its report of the "great risk" of the referendum sparking further violence in Kirkuk and recommended postponing it for a year.The Kurds would hardly welcome any such delay and might well annex the city precipitating a crisis with Turkey.

'L'etat, C'est Moi' The president and his pet war continue to dominate the media. After failing miserably to question and probe claims by the Bush Administration before and after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, reports in both print and broadcast media indicate that the days of rolling over for the spinmeisters from White House are past. It is hard to find much support for troop surge but the Decider is charging ahead. Behind the scenes, his administration is continuing to take actions that are reminiscent of the former Soviet Russia under Stalin. Not known whether President Bush is aware of the Sun King but he would have no problem with the statement made by Louis XIV of France "L'Etat, C'est Moi" (I am the State).Dahlia Lithwick in the Post:The Imperial PresidencyAnd why is President Bush still issuing grandiose and provocative signing statements, the latest of which claims that the executive branch has the power to open mail when it sees fit?I once believed that the common thread here is presidential blindness -- an extreme executive-branch myopia that leads the chief executive to believe that these futile measures are integral to combating terrorism; a self-delusion that precludes Bush and his advisers from recognizing that Padilla is a chump and Guantanamo Bay is just a holding pen for a jumble of innocent or half-guilty wretches.But it has finally become clear that the goal of these efforts isn't to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo Bay or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terrorism. The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake.Karen DeYoung in the Washington Post:Under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the Pentagon expanded its collection of intelligence within the borders of the United States -- a development that stirred concern among members of Congress and prompted stern criticism and lawsuits from civil liberties advocates.These efforts are overseen by the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity agency, or CIFA, which was established in September 2002 by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz.CIFA is charged with coordinating policy and overseeing the domestic counterintelligence activities of Pentagon agencies and the armed forces. The agency's size and budget are classified, but congressional sources have said that the agency spent more than $1 billion through October. One counterintelligence official recently estimated that CIFA has 400 full-time employees and 800 to 900 contractors working for it.In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing last month, Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, pledged to look "in greater detail" at CIFA's activities.The agency was criticized in December 2005 after it was revealed that a database managed by CIFA, called TALON, contained unverified, raw threat information about people who were peacefully protesting the Iraq war at defense facilities, including recruiting offices. In August, CIFA Director David A. Burtt II and his top deputy, Joseph Hefferon, resigned in the wake of a scandal involving CIFA contracts that went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade. Wade pleaded guilty last February to conspiring to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif).What lies ahead? If the opposition to troop surge by Democrats and some Republican members of Congress holds then then there is something to hope for. Even a nonbinding resolution cannot fail to have an impact on the warmongers.Opposition to Iraq Plan Leaves Bush IsolatedThe White House has downscaled its goals and is playing for time. Advisers resign themselves to a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the troop increase but want to avoid many Republicans voting for it. Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who lost reelection, called Bush's plan "a step in the right direction" and said Republicans do not want to walk away from Iraq but are "in full political survival mode" now. "It's very hard, particularly if you're on the ballot in two years, to run on the side of the president on anything to do with the war."The more serious threat to the White House would be a Democratic attempt to restrict funds for more troops. Bush aides said that current funds are enough to get started, and they are counting on the notion that it will take two months until the supplemental appropriation bill providing more war funds comes to a vote. By then, they said, extra troops will be on the ground and it will be too late for Congress to stop them. And they hope for signs of progress that would let them argue that the plan is working.

Bush's last stand. The Potomac will continue to flow after the presidency of George Walker Bush, aka Dubya, aka the Decider, is over and the legacy of the present occupier of the White House will continue to haunt us for a long time. The damage he has wrought will take decades to repair.As expected, the warrior president submitted his case for troop surge. It will take a few days to assess the impact of his move. Indications are that it will not receive support from a substantial majority of Americans. The Democrats are finally showing signs of courage by taking a stand against the president's plan. If they stick with it the president will not find it easy to get his way as he did in the past by spreading fear and talking about patriotism.Among the many comments in print media, this one from The Guardian, UK, stands out:Defiance and delusionLeaderThursday January 11, 2007The GuardianGeorge Bush's announcement last night that he is going to pour more troops into Iraq was the last throw of the dice in a misconceived enterprise that has dragged his country, this country and the Middle East into a nightmare. The package includes 17,500 more combat troops for Baghdad and 4,000 more marines for Anbar province, the cockpit of the Sunni insurgency. Over $1bn will be spent in economic aid. In return the Iraqis are to promise to crackdown on insurgents, regardless of sect or religion.In opting for a troop surge, Mr Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. US generals have difficulty enough maintaining current levels of combat-ready troops and are not convinced that more troops will make any difference. Rather than listen to them, Mr Bush has turned to the right, to those who argue that honour and the America's national interests require fighting on. One senses that "honour" is the more important of the two.Back on Earth - where on Tuesday 1,000 American and Iraqi troops were battling Sunni insurgents with helicopters and warplanes for the control of a three-mile stretch of road running through the centre of Baghdad - any plan for Iraq is predicated on the ability of Nouri al-Maliki's government to disarm the Shia militias. Only then can the police force and army be rebuilt, Sunnis included in a settlement and control re-established over wide areas of the country. The task of regaining Iraq is no longer just about containing an insurgency; it is about staunching the flames of a civil war.Thus far, al-Maliki's record has not been good. He has been unable or unwilling to confront the main Shia warlord, Moqtada al-Sadr, on whom he depends for parliamentary support. His government cannot fight sectarianism, if entire ministries are working for the Shia militias. This was demonstrated by the execution of Saddam Hussein. On Tuesday alone, 40 bodies were found in Baghdad, the presumed work of the death squads.Back at home, the president is almost alone. Only senator John McCain, the leading Republican candidate to replace Mr Bush, and Joe Lieberman, on the right of the Democrats, support his plan. Queuing up to oppose him, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and senator Edward Kennedy have all said that they intend to hold symbolic votes on the plan. They cannot overrule a decision by the commander-in-chief, but they can isolate him. There could be as many as 10 Republican defections in the Senate. The Democrats have turned up the volume of their moral outrage, presumably because they think Mr Bush will not be able to hold the line with the latest announcement. In most people's minds, the argument for withdrawal, however gradual, has already been won. The only issue that remains is how quickly it happens.Tony Blair was also having difficulty in the commons yesterday, with Sir Menzies Campbell pressing him on whether Britain will mirror Mr Bush's deepening of engagement. Mr Blair maintained that Basra was in a bubble of its own, unaffected by the troubles that beset Baghdad. He said that once the current operation against militia infiltration of the Basra police was complete, Iraqis would take over control over their own affairs.The claim peace is returning to Basra is as unreal as Mr Bush's hope that order can be brought to Baghdad. Surrounded by the wreckage of the disaster they created, both men still hope, against all reality, that somehow the pieces can be put back together again. But their project is dead. A few more troops, or a few more months, will not restore it. Both men are on their way out. By stringing the war along without admitting defeat, it will become the business of another British prime minister and another American president to end it. Also see "Mr. Bush's Strategy", Washington Post.Addendum: January 11, 2007 Washington Post-ABC News Poll "Poll: Most Americans Opposed to Bush's Iraq PlanMajority of Those Surveyed Are Skeptical That Surge Would Make Victory More Likely"