A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Carolyn in Tennessee
Tonight George Bush will annouce his newest military tactic for fighting the Iraq war, that tactic is being described as "The Surge."
How could this band of bad men expect us to believe that "The Surge" is a new tactic? Haven't we spent the last 4 years sending our finest and bravest young men and women into Iraq to "surge" toward the enemy? Aren't we weary of hearing that same old explanation, that goes: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq"? How can we continue to accept the ambiguity of the word "terrorist" as the definition of our enemy? Shouldn't we demand to know exactly who the hell the enemy is?
from the Democatic National Committee
Editorials Around the Country Blast Bush's War Escalation With Troop Increase
Washington, DC - As the President prepares to announce an increase of an additional 20,000 American troops for the civil war in Iraq, editorials in newspapers across the country are joining the wide-ranging criticism of the war's escalation. Calling it "a futile gesture" and noting that there "is nothing novel" about the President's latest tactic, editorials from Atlanta to Albuquerque, and Dallas to Milwaukee are calling for a "new strategy," for the President to put "far more pressure" on the Iraqis, and for a greater attempt at diplomacy, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment"
One of the most common criticisms I get when I discuss the impeachment issue among Democrats and progressives is that I'm impatient and that I'm asking too much of the new Congress--that Democrats need time to get settled into their new role as majority party.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Norman Solomon
President Bush may be a headless horseman. But the biggest problem is what he rode in on.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a good name for it 40 years ago. "The madness of militarism."
A BUZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Marlene Lunsman
I Saw The Planes Fly Into Towers
I saw the planes fly into towers, I saw the smoke and cried.
I heard the sorrow, pain and anger, for the ones who died.
Who was to blame for all the shame ... what devils made the plan?
What was the need to do this deed ... kill woman and kill man?
Then came the war, and shock and awe...
More violence and more shame...
the reasons varied ever more and still the violence came.
Weapons of the mass destruction, they were never found
but still the violence and destruction, and blood ran on the ground.
Children, mothers, and the fathers, the old ones and the young....
No hiding from the "smart bombs," the destruction was far flung.....
And lies were told, and spins were spun and rumors did abound....
Corporations did the money make while violence shook the ground
Stay the course, complete the job, victory is ours.....
Don't cut and run, we are not done, and graves are topped with flowers....
Our bravest soldiers told to fight, as terror strikes our land
Gallantly they give their lives, ..Or arm...or leg...or hand....
The price they pay too high to count for Haliburton's brand.
The reasons real are dark and deep.....the truth is underneath....
The real terrorists unpunished....their legacy bequeaths
to history, when it discovers, how it was and who the devils were.....
a sorrow and a stain so vile.....an anger it will stir....
When people learn the naked truth...that now is buried deep....
will anger come and boil and swell and boiling will it sweep
O'er all the nation that was lied to, while it's loyalty was used....
Will anger sweep away the sorrow of the hearts that bruised?
The sons and daughters sacrificed, for profits for the rich....
While people who are poor or old are cast into the ditch....
Will anger burn and sweep our land, and purify and clean?
How long will the delay is made...Until the truth is seen?
Grandma is mad....Marlene Lunsman 2007
A Shout-Out To The Bushies Who Question The Patriotism Of Anti-War Americans
by Tony Peyser
You think we're stupid
You think we're dopes
We support our troops
But not your tropes.
BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE
Hmm, democracy in the Middle East would actually be disastrous for the U.S. and its allies! "... few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want the results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the anti-Americanism that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in late December. An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region's remaining pro-American dictators in jeopardy, too. In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf, conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from a U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they ultimately don't believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the plan." Don't count on sanity or the threat of "potential disaster" to prevail, remember this is George Bush and thus far there hasn't been anything sane in the "strategeries" he's come up with, it's been nothing but one disaster after the other!
WORLD MEDIA WATCH
Summaries are excerpted from the source articles; the featured article follows the summary section. A recommended "site of the day" will also appear occasionally following the summaries.
In a most contradictory fashion, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line government has unexpectedly revived the support for reforms in Iran, both domestically and internationally. Inside the country's political arena the extravagant self-reliance of Ahmadinejad's extremist approach toward cultural and political issues, followed by widespread international condemnation, has resulted in a dramatic retreat by many prominent political figures in the Islamic Republic from their previous conservative positions to more flexible ones Ex-president (1989-1997) and current head of the powerful Expediency Discernment Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, could be singled out as the most iconic political figure to definitively take a step back from Ahmadinejad's policies. Rafsanjani is considered as one of the most influential architects of the Islamic Republic's political system, and is a long-time ally of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. ... A conservative figure throughout his presidency, Rafsanjani's tough approach toward social and political freedom once spawned the reformist movement led by Mohammad Khatami. ... The tendency to adopt a semi-reformist approach in the conservative ranks has paralleled concerns among the minority reformist Khatami supporters. According to many observers, a coalition between the two traditional rivals against the hard-line government is probable.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Peter Michaelson
Now that she's gone, it's a battle between the Christian cross and the Nike swoosh to replace her as the national symbol of our beliefs and values. We took her for granted, no doubt, but she was always there, in the palm of our hands, the very image of our unspoken, sometimes even unconscious, communion with the ideals and destiny of America.
DR. J'S SHORT SHOT
by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
"The 100 Hours" of the new Democratic House of Representatives is beginning just about now as I write this. The primary significance of "The 100 Hours" is that the legislative block of time exists. As much as the Republicans and their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda would like the public to think that the 100 hours are clock hours and the clock began ticking with the ceremonies opening the Congress took place on Jan. 4, the plan has always been that they are legislative hours, to begin when the first session of the 110th Congress is convened. The significance is that the House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi have a plan, and it is a plan for dealing with substantive issues, six of them. The significance of "The 100 Hours" is that it is focused on substance, on enacting legislation, totally unlike Gingrich's "Contract on America." In the latter, six of its eight (not ten as is commonly thought) provisions dealt with Congressional processes, not substance.