If you cut through the baloney, last night the President announced that American troops will join forces with the Shiite Death Squads to subjugate the Sunnis.  He didn't come out and say, 'plain and simple', that America is taking sides in the Iraqi civil war, but that is his plan.

The President did not say, 'plain and simple', that he wants to kill or arrest Shiite militia leader al-Sadr.  He did not mention al-Sadr by name.  Why not?  When it was our mission to kill Zarqawi, the President said, 'plain and simple', that we were going to kill Zarqawi, and we did.  After 9/11, the President said, 'plain and simple', that he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive.  We never got Bin Laden, but the President did not mince words about our objective.  So why mince words about al-Sadr?  Why not just say, 'plain and simple', we want al-Sadr's head on a stick.  He didn't say it because that is not his plan.  His plan is to side with the Shia against the Sunnis.

The President didn't call for al-Sadr's head because if he did, he may as well put the bullet in Maliki  himself.  The Prime Minister wouldn't be able to trust his own bodyguard.  I fear that the President is setting up the Prime Minister for assassination as it is.

The President did quote this statement from Maliki  'just last week':  "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."  Why be so vague about it?  Is it the clearly-defined mission of American troops to take down al-Sadr's milita?  If it is, then say so.  If you can't even say it--because that would bring down Maliki's government overnight--then how are you going to execute it?  They are not going to execute it.  It is not the plan.  The plan is to choose sides in the Iraq civil war.

From the President's speech, one of the 'main elements' of his plan:  "The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations-- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."

This is nonsense:  It is the Iraqi police that have been carrying out Shiite revenge killings against the Sunnis.  The Iraqi police are the Death Squads.  The President proposes that Shiite Death Squads, backed up by our  troops, will go 'door-to-door gaining the trust' of the Sunnis in Baghdad.  This is his strategy to achieve national unity in Iraq.

Hello, Death Squad Calling

If the Sunnis had attacked the United States, I'd say send our troops in and wipe them out--men, women, and children if tragically necessary.  But they didn't.  The Sunnis do not threaten America.  Our troops didn't go to Iraq to wipe out the Sunnis.  They are there on this pollyana spacehead mission of spreading harmony throughout the Middle East.  How does subjugating the Sunnis hand-in-hand with Shiite Death Squads spread harmony through the Middle East?

The President's plan is not 'worth a try'.  It has no rational chance of success--absolutely none--and will only succeed in fomenting an eternal blood rage against America amongst the Sunnis throughout the Middle East (as if there wasn't enough anti-American pathology already).

Impeach First, Then Redeploy

The Bush Presidency rests tenuously on two great fears.  The first great fear is that withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States--a political 'mushroom cloud.'  This is an extremely complex question.  The second great fear is that we cannot afford to undermine or remove the Commander-in-Chief during war time.  This is a lie.

We fear:  civil war between the Shia and the Sunnis will erupt if we withdraw.  What do we expect--two massive armies aligned across a battlefield?  These people fight wars with pipebombs.  The civil war isn't going to get any bigger.  It's just going to get resolved faster once we get the hell out.  We are prolonging the civil war indefinitely by creating an artificial stalemate.  Our presence only dooms that nation to permanent civil war.  Will they ever get tired of violence?  Ask the Israelis.

We fear:  Shiite genocide against the Sunnis, triggering military intervention by the Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia has an army?  The Sunnis don't think they will be massacred by the Shia if we leave.  They are trying to drive us out.  They believe they will win a civil war, not be massacred.  Ask yourself--why were the Sunnis running that country in the first place if they are a minority.  The Sunnis are not sheep and they are not going to be slaughtered.

We fear:  widespread regional war.  There have been regional wars.  Iraq and Iran fought constantly in the last half of the last century.  I doubt most Americans even knew those wars were happening.

We fear:  humanitarian crisis.  Yes, it will be terrible.  There was humanitarian crisis under Saddam.  'Shock and awe' was a humanitarian crisis.  The Iraq-Iran wars were humanitarian crises.  We should redeploy our troops to help as best we can with humanitarian aid, not join forces with the Death Squads to foment eternal jihad.

We fear:  an al-Queada base in Iraq.  This should be the sole focus of our troop redeployment.  Stay out of the Shiite-Sunni mess, and focus entirely on blocking al-Queada, as well as offer humanitarian aid--we don't want al-Queada to play the role Hezbollah now plays in Lebanon.  This one element of the Bush doctrine should remain in force forever:  harbor al-Queada and you are dead.

I would ask whether al-Queada can establish a base of operations on the pre-9/11 Afghan scale in the middle of a civil war.  Don't they need stability themselves in order to stage international operations?  Zarqarwi was effective within Iraq, but he never projected terror overseas.  It's revealing that we tracked Zarqarwi down in Iraq, just as Israel has tracked and killed Hizbal and Hamas leaders repeatedly, whereas we still can't put a finger on bin-Laden or al-Zawahiri.  It may be a fear-mongering oversimplification to claim that Iraq will become another Afghanistan.  I don't think the scenarios are parallel.

We fear:  the perception of defeat in Iraq.  That is why we must impeach the President.  It is his personal defeat, not ours as a nation, and we need to make that official.

The biggest lie of all is that America cannot afford to neutralize or remove a failed Commander-in-Chief during wartime.  That big 'Uncle Tom', warmonger Joe Lieberman, is carrying this message for the White House.

But we lost FDR during wartime, and survived and won.  We lost Kennedy, savaged LBJ, and removed Nixon during the height of the Cold War, and survived and won.  And let's not forget how dangerous the Cold War was; one wrong move by an inept President could have turned that thing plutonium-hot in a blink.  Every day that George Bush is in office puts the nation at greater peril.  Every decision he is allowed to make places us in greater danger.  As we consider the consequences of the President's failure in Iraq, let us also consider the consequences of another huge Presidential blunder.  For that is what Bush is offering:  escalation in Iraq, yet another grotesque, catastrophic and unconscionable failure of judgment.

We do not need a Churchill now.  We need a Mastermind--like Nixon.  The President confessed last night that Zarqawi ran strategic rings around him in Iraq.  We are at war with diabolic masterminds, and we need a mastermind in the White House, not George Bush.

Unlike some opponents of the war, I take this 'sign of weakness' problem very seriously.  al-Queada will claim victory when we inevitably redeploy our troops.  The President has handed our enemy a bonanza of propaganda.  That is why it is imperative that we impeach the President and redeploy before the end of his term.  The nation can save face on the world stage by dramatically placing blame for Iraq squarely on the head of George Bush.  Only through impeachment can the nation distance itself from the stigma of the President's failure.  For the sake of our reputation as world superpower, we must send a message to the world:  This was the President's failure, not a failure for America.  And don't kid yourself, al-Queada.  Beating Bush is not the same as beating America.

The President cannot be allowed to complete his term.  We can use any number of reasons, we did it with Nixon, we did it with Clinton.  Lying about WMD's.  Disposing of American soldiers' lives for a cynical, personal purpose, to create some silly illusion of his Presidential legacy.  Tying the hands of future Presidents by escalating in Iraq.  Haliburton.  Mental collapse.  We have reached the point where impeachment is vital to the national security.