Get Out! The Recap

How much stupider can you be? Or, at least, that's what I think when I see this and this.

Don't start shit that no one can finish! This and this convince me that our administration has a death wish.

Living in the present means living towards the future, too. Finally, a voice of sanity, from the last place on Earth from which I would expect sanity to spew.

Are we going to survive?


January 18, 2007
Bush on Iraq Plan: "I Believe It Will Work"

By REUTERS
Filed at 8:36 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush insisted on Thursday his reworked Iraq strategy could succeed as he worked on a State of the Union speech expected to include a new defense of his much-criticized policy.

Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops has been hammered by Democrats and many Republicans since it was unveiled last week. He suggested it should be given a chance and challenged critical lawmakers to offer an alternative.

``I believe it will work,'' Bush told Belo television, a U.S. group of local stations.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would use part of his prime-time televised address on Tuesday before a joint session of the U.S. Congress -- now controlled by Democrats -- to talk about the war on terrorism, which the administration says includes Iraq.

It comes as Democrats and many of Bush's own Republicans are preparing to vote on a nonbinding resolution to protest sending more troops to Iraq and to call for more diplomacy and an ``appropriately expedited'' transfer of military responsibilities to Iraqi forces.

``I understand resolutions,'' Bush told Sinclair television, another group of local stations. ``My advice to those who are speaking out against a new plan that hasn't been given a chance to work is present a plan you think will work. If disaster is not an option, what do you think will make it successful in Iraq?'' he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would vote to oppose Bush's new Iraq war strategy because it disagreed with the policy, but that she would not move to block funding for a troop increase.

``Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.'' Pelosi said in a taped interview with ABC's ``Good Morning America,'' airing on Friday. ``The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.''

Bush's attempts to gain traction with his plan come amid frictions with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who disputed Bush's contention this week that the hanging of Saddam Hussein looked like a revenge killing and said Iraq's need for U.S. forces would drop dramatically if Washington would speed up the equipping and arming of Iraq's security forces.

Bush tried to avoid a public clash with Maliki.

``My new strategy is aimed at helping the Iraqi government do exactly what the prime minister said what he wants to do,'' he told Sinclair. ``Now it's up to him.''

Snow said while ``there's a disagreement on the handling of the Saddam execution,'' the two governments are cooperating and ''he's (Maliki) not in a fight with us.''

With the debate in Washington dominated by Iraq, Bush planned to devote a great portion of his speech to raise the profile of his domestic agenda.

That includes changing immigration laws, improving health care and education and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

He is widely expected to announce ways to expand the production and use of alternative fuels. He is under pressure from European leaders to take bolder steps to slow greenhouse-gas emissions many scientists blame for global warming.

Bush opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, saying they would hurt the U.S. economy, and prefers voluntary ways of reducing them.

Snow said Bush's objective was to ``balance the needs of security and at the same time also the environment and you can expect him to make that linkage in the speech.''



January 18, 2007
Retired Generals Criticize Bush’s Plan for Iraq

By JOHN HOLUSHA
A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”

Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

“There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests,” he said.

In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, “Today, I don’t have an understanding about how it will work militarily.”

One general warned that even a plan to start withdrawing American forces from the country carried the risk that the armed Iraqi population will step up the level of attacks. “We will be shot at as we are going out.” said Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army.



January 18, 2007
Iran’s President Criticized Over Nuclear Issue

By NAZILA FATHI and MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in the country’s nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.

Less than a month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the Supreme Leader himself — who has final say on all matters of state —may no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West. It is the first sign that the president has lost any degree of confidence from the leader, a potentially damaging reality for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power to be Iran’s “inalienable right.”

It was unclear, however, whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran’s public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad’s public profile or signaled any change in policy.

The Iranian presidency is a relatively weak position with no official authority over foreign policy, the domain of the supreme leader. But Mr. Ahmadinejad has used the bully pulpit to insert himself into the nuclear debate, and as long as he appeared to enjoy Mr. Khamenei’s support, he could continue.

While Iran remains publicly defiant, insisting it will move ahead with its nuclear ambitions, it is under increasing strain as political and economic pressures grow. And the message that Iran’s most senior officials seem to be sending is that the president, with his harsh approach and caustic comments, is undermining Iran’s cause and its standing.

Mr. Ahmadinejad dismissed the Security Council resolution as “a piece of torn paper.“

But the daily newspaper Jomhouri-Elsami, which belongs to Ayatollah Khamenei, said, “The resolution is certainly harmful for the country,” adding that it is “too much to call it a piece of torn paper.”

The newspaper said the nuclear case requires its own diplomacy, “sometimes toughness and sometimes flexibility.”“

In another sign of pressure on the president to distance himself from the nuclear issue, a second newspaper run by an aide to the country’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, also pressed him to end his involvement with the nuclear program. Mr. Larijani also ran for president and was selected for his post by the supreme leader.

“They want to minimize the consequences of sanctions now that they have been imposed,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, the former head of the daily Shargh and a reformist politician. “But they don’t have clear strategy and they are taking one step at a time.”

Iran’s president entered office more than a year ago as an outsider. He was mayor of Tehran and promised to challenge the status quo, to equally distribute Iran’s oil wealth and to restore what he saw as the lost values of the Islamic revolution. His was a populist message, centered on a socialist economic model and Islamic values. And from the start he found opposition from the right and left, in the Iranian parliament and among those who viewed themselves as being more pragmatic.

That pressure has continued — and seems now to have gained more credibility in the face of the sanctions and Iran’s troubled economic standing. The United States’ increased pressure on Iran in Iraq has also raised concerns in Tehran and may be behind efforts to restrain the president, political analysts in Tehran said.

“The resolution has decreased Iran’s political credibility in the international community and so other countries cannot defend Iran,” Ahmad Shirzad, a former member of parliament and reformist politician said.

Although the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Dec. 23 were limited to Iran’s nuclear program, they have started to cause disruptions in the economy.

About 50 members of parliament signed a letter this week calling on the president to appear before parliament to answer questions about the nuclear case. The signatories need at least another 22 members to sign before it can be enforced.

In another letter 150 lawmakers criticized the president for his economic policies, which have led to a surge in inflation, and for his failure to submit his annual budget for next year in time.

The stock market, which was already in a slump, continued to decline more rapidly in the past month as buyers stayed away. The daily Kargozaran reported last week the number of traders decreased by 46 percent since the Security Council resolution was passed.

“The resolution has had a psychological effect on people,” said Ali Hagh, an economist in Tehran. “It does not make sense for investors not to consider political events when they want to invest their money.”

The daily Kargozaran reported that a group of powerful businessmen, the Islamic Coalition Party, met with Mohammad Nahavandian, a senior official at the Supreme National Security Council, and called for moderation in the country’s nuclear policies to prevent further damage to the economy.

Eight major European banks have severed their business ties with Iran.

Economists say that move by the banks will also lead to a further increase in the inflation because importers must turn to complicated ways to finance purchases.

“The nuclear issue has paved the way for other forms of pressures on Iran,” said Ahmad Shirzad, a reformist politician and former member of parliament.

Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s harsh language since the resolution was passed, Mr. Khamenei has not referred to the resolution directly and only once said that Iran will not give up its right to develop nuclear power. Mr. Larijani has said that Iran will not quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or bar International Atomic Energy Inspectors despite earlier threats.

Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Michael Slackman from Cairo.


January 18, 2007
Bernanke: Budget Action Needed Before "Storm"

By REUTERS
Filed at 12:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON ( Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke bluntly warned the U.S. Congress on Thursday that failure to act soon to deal with the budgetary strains posed by an aging U.S. population could lead to serious economic harm.

``We are experiencing what seems likely to be the calm before the storm,'' Bernanke told the Senate Budget Committee as he acknowledged projections that the U.S. budget deficit could hold steady or even narrow in the near-term.

``However, if early and meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost,'' he added, citing worrisome long-term projections on the cost of programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

``The longer we wait, the more severe, the more draconian, the more difficult the adjustments are going to be,'' Bernanke cautioned as he answered questions before the panel.

The Fed chairman did not discuss the outlook for interest rates in his testimony, the first he has delivered since Democrats took control of Congress after November elections. He is expected to testify on Fed policy on February 14-15.

Bernanke also hewed closely to a previous pledge to remain neutral in Washington budget policy debates, steering clear of specific advice on how Congress might meet or lower the projected costs of retirement and health-care programs even as he warned of the risks of inaction.

``Dealing with the resulting fiscal strains will pose difficult choices for the Congress, the administration, and the American people,'' Bernanke said.

``VICIOUS CYCLE''

Bernanke cited projections by the Congressional Budget Office that showed spending on entitlement programs would reach about 15 percent of U.S. gross domestic product by 2030, a size he said risked fueling an ever-growing mountain of debt.

``A vicious cycle may develop in which large deficits lead to rapid growth in debt and interest payments, which in turn adds to subsequent deficits,'' Bernanke said.

``Ultimately, this expansion of debt would spark a fiscal crisis, which could be addressed only by very sharp spending cuts or tax increases, or both,'' he added.

The Fed chief said whatever budget decisions were taken, tax rates would need to be set at a level that achieved ``an appropriate balance of spending and revenues in the long run.''

Bernanke said advocates of lower taxes would have to accept lower spending on entitlement programs. Likewise, proponents of more-expansive government programs must recognize the need for higher taxes brought about by higher spending, he added.

``Unfortunately, economic growth alone is unlikely to solve the nation's impending fiscal problems,'' he said.

President George W. Bush has also warned of the risks of inaction but a plan he offered to shore-up Social Security by allowing workers to invest retirement accounts in stocks and bonds was rejected by Democrats, who argued it would undermine retirement security.

Trustees for the retirement program said last year Social Security would exhaust its assets in 2040, while the trust fund for Medicare, which covers retiree health-care costs, would run dry in just 12 years.