Yellow Dog

I guess this is what happens when you go to war with a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and try to make people (like Fox News viewers) believe that it's part of the broader "War on Terror."

According to a classified National Intelligence Estimate the Iraq War has fueled more terrorism:

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking."

Feel safer?

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat - New York Times

Now that our government has sunk to new lows as it tries to "compromise" on torture (talk about moral relativism), it's worth asking why Bush wants to change the long-standing Geneva Conventions, for which--for the past 75 years--no one seemed to question the statutes' vagueness.

But this Chicago Sun-Times story gets it right. It's not about the vague language of the statute; it's all about the usual Bush administration politics of CYA (cover your ass):

Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

If winning means soaring to new record highs in the number of deaths, destruction, and dollars spent in Iraq, then, yes, we are winning. It still astounds me when I see polls where Republicans cling to their support of the Iraq War, despite the facts, including two reports today--one that civilian deaths in Iraq are at an all-time high as Iraq slides to civil war and the other that Congress just approved another $70 billion for military operations in Iraq.

Nearly 7,000 civilians were killed in Iraq in the past two months, according to a UN report just released - a record high that is far greater than initial estimates had suggested. As American generals in Baghdad warned that the violence could worsen in the run up to Ramadan next Monday, the UN spoke of a "grave sectarian crisis" gripping the country.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Civilian deaths soar to record high in Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House-Senate negotiators Thursday approved a new $70 billion infusion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as they wrapped up talks on a $447 billion Pentagon funding bill.

The additional war funds would bring the total approved by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, to more than $500 billion, with another installment likely to come next spring.

How devoid of critical thinking skills and rational thought must you have to be to want to "stay the course" in Iraq?

Now who's sorely mistaken?

Atrios links to this Bush quote right after 9/11, and it's worth remembering five years later:

Q Sir, are you satisfied that Osama bin Laden is at least a kingpin of this operation?

THE PRESIDENT: There is no question he is what we would call a prime suspect. And if he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.

Someone in this deal is "sorely mistaken," and I don't think it's OBL....

President Urges Readiness and Patience