On the Iraq War, Vice President Cheney disregards will of American people.
"ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:
CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.
RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls."
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Iraqi Death Toll at 151,000
"by Brenda Wilson
A study conducted by the World Health Organization and the Iraq Health Ministry estimates that more than 150,000 Iraqis suffered violent deaths in the first three years after the U.S. invasion.
That's about a fourth of the number of deaths found in an earlier controversial study.
The World Health Organization's study of violent deaths is based on visits to more than 10,000 households throughout Iraq. Ties Boerma, WHO's director of Measurements and Health Information, says the results include the deaths of civilians and soldiers who were part of those households.
"They don't include car accidents and they don't include unintentional injuries," says Boerma. "They just include intentional injuries and armed conflict. In fact, the armed conflict deaths are more than 80 percent of the deaths we got reported."
Researchers left it up to the respondents to define the cause of death.
"If they said someone died while trying to avoid a bomb blast, (you) could define it as an armed conflict death, but that was up to the respondents," says Boerma.
Boerma and his team looked at the period between March 2003 and June 2006, and estimated 151,000 violent deaths in Iraq.
That's a fraction of the more than 600,000 violent deaths reported for the same period by researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in 2006, a survey that continues to be debated in the press and political circles.
Both studies counted civilian and combatant fatalities. Boerma thinks the difference in their findings is that the earlier Hopkins study visited far fewer neighborhoods and villages. Researchers working with Hopkins visited 47 so-called clusters; researchers with WHO visited more than 1,000 clusters.
"Because we are talking about a survey that is much larger, we have a little bit more confidence in that method than in a very small cluster survey," says Boerma.
Boerma admits that even the bigger survey missed areas that were too violent to get into and so they made adjustments for that.
Les Roberts was the co-author of the Johns Hopkins study. He says that they can produce a death certificate for every violent death in their tally and he doubts the surveyors working for Iraq's Ministry of Health can produce the same.
"Every graveyard tally, every morgue description I've seen suggests the majority of deaths are from violence," Roberts says. "There are two possibilities. Our estimate has too many. Theirs has too few." Roberts says he thinks in the case of the WHO study, families were reluctant to admit a family member died a violent death.
However, there are other reports on increases in violent deaths whose trends are closer to those reported by WHO.
It is unlikely that this latest research will settle the question of the exact magnitude of death the Iraq conflict has caused."
A study conducted by the World Health Organization and the Iraq Health Ministry estimates that more than 150,000 Iraqis suffered violent deaths in the first three years after the U.S. invasion.
That's about a fourth of the number of deaths found in an earlier controversial study.
The World Health Organization's study of violent deaths is based on visits to more than 10,000 households throughout Iraq. Ties Boerma, WHO's director of Measurements and Health Information, says the results include the deaths of civilians and soldiers who were part of those households.
"They don't include car accidents and they don't include unintentional injuries," says Boerma. "They just include intentional injuries and armed conflict. In fact, the armed conflict deaths are more than 80 percent of the deaths we got reported."
Researchers left it up to the respondents to define the cause of death.
"If they said someone died while trying to avoid a bomb blast, (you) could define it as an armed conflict death, but that was up to the respondents," says Boerma.
Boerma and his team looked at the period between March 2003 and June 2006, and estimated 151,000 violent deaths in Iraq.
That's a fraction of the more than 600,000 violent deaths reported for the same period by researchers at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in 2006, a survey that continues to be debated in the press and political circles.
Both studies counted civilian and combatant fatalities. Boerma thinks the difference in their findings is that the earlier Hopkins study visited far fewer neighborhoods and villages. Researchers working with Hopkins visited 47 so-called clusters; researchers with WHO visited more than 1,000 clusters.
"Because we are talking about a survey that is much larger, we have a little bit more confidence in that method than in a very small cluster survey," says Boerma.
Boerma admits that even the bigger survey missed areas that were too violent to get into and so they made adjustments for that.
Les Roberts was the co-author of the Johns Hopkins study. He says that they can produce a death certificate for every violent death in their tally and he doubts the surveyors working for Iraq's Ministry of Health can produce the same.
"Every graveyard tally, every morgue description I've seen suggests the majority of deaths are from violence," Roberts says. "There are two possibilities. Our estimate has too many. Theirs has too few." Roberts says he thinks in the case of the WHO study, families were reluctant to admit a family member died a violent death.
However, there are other reports on increases in violent deaths whose trends are closer to those reported by WHO.
It is unlikely that this latest research will settle the question of the exact magnitude of death the Iraq conflict has caused."
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Permanently in Iraq
Have you seen the headlines? President Bush is quietly negotiating an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep our troops there indefinitely--an agreement that could include permanent bases and a massive military presence for years!1 Bush is trying to tie the hands of the next administration to keep us in Iraq for the foreseeable future.2
This is a pivotal moment—the agreement is still in the planning stages and if we don't act now, we could be stuck in Iraq for decades.
It's critical to push Democrats into opposing this. Right now, President Bush's troop reduction plan has fooled some people into thinking we're headed toward an exit in Iraq—but this move makes it clear he's literally committing the U.S. to a war with no end. It's an extreme policy and Congress can stop it—but whether they do depends on how loud we are.
Can you sign the petition demanding that Congress act to stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades? We'll deliver your comments to your representatives by the end of the week—there's no time to waste. Clicking here will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/endless/o.pl?id=11723-3446513-7uL.S0&t=3
This is a pivotal moment—the agreement is still in the planning stages and if we don't act now, we could be stuck in Iraq for decades.
It's critical to push Democrats into opposing this. Right now, President Bush's troop reduction plan has fooled some people into thinking we're headed toward an exit in Iraq—but this move makes it clear he's literally committing the U.S. to a war with no end. It's an extreme policy and Congress can stop it—but whether they do depends on how loud we are.
Can you sign the petition demanding that Congress act to stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades? We'll deliver your comments to your representatives by the end of the week—there's no time to waste. Clicking here will add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/endless/o.pl?id=11723-3446513-7uL.S0&t=3
Army Captains Critique Iraq War
“Enough of this bumper-sticker patriotism. Do something about it or stop wasting my time.”Elizabeth Bostwick, ex-U.S. Army captain
"A dozen former U.S. Army captains wrote a column for The Washington Post last month entitled "The Real Iraq We Knew" in which they set out to describe the war they had experienced, instead of the one generals and politicians had described.
The officers' words have stirred controversy, with some critics calling them traitors. But that hasn't stopped them from speaking out.
In the op-ed piece, published on the fifth anniversary of the authorization of military force in Iraq, the 12 captains wrote that they had "seen the corruption and the sectarian division."
"We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out," they said.
"Captain is a unique position in the Army because you are really a cog at the center of it all," said Jason Blindauer, a veteran of five years in the Army, including three deployments to Iraq. "As we used to say, you can see the asses of the generals and the faces of the privates."
But a $35,000 retention bonus could not keep these captains in, even though at the outset they had been deeply committed to the military.
"There is no job that I ever wanted to do other than being a military officer," Blindauer said. "As far as the prospect of going to war with Iraq, I was excited about it. I was a young infantry officer with the opportunity to go to war."
Jeff Bouldin served in the Army for four years and in Iraq for 14 months. Like most of the 12 captains, he initially supported the invasion, but gradually became disillusioned with the leaders in charge of the war.
"The tactics we used and the overall goals in every province I served in had no semblance to any military logic that I had ever known," he said.
Then there was the prospect of repeated deployments without much time in between for family.
"I had a young family," Bouldin said. "I had a son who was 24 months old and I had seen him for four months of his entire life."
Blindauer and Bouldin are talking in Elizabeth Bostwick's Dallas apartment. Bostwick spent four years in the Army.
"I believed in my mission and beyond that I tried not to think about it," Bostwick said.
She said she tried not to think beyond her own security mission with the Military Police. Even though she comes from a military family, she wasn't gung-ho about the war.
"Knowing that the preponderance of your peer group is home shopping, having stable relationships not interrupted by deployments … it's disheartening," Bostwick said. "You're saying enough of this bumper-sticker patriotism. Do something about it or stop wasting my time."
To the group of 12, doing something about it means signing up to serve, and they suggest that a draft may be necessary. Jason Blindauer quotes German military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz, saying a country has to have both the strength of means and the strength of will to win a war.
"We don't have a military large enough to conduct the long-duration, low-intensity wars, and we haven't harnessed the collective will of the American people. So what good is it?" Blindauer said.
Luis Montalvan, who currently resides in Brooklyn, N.Y., joined the Army when he was 17 and stayed in for 17 years. He did two tours in Iraq. Montalvan angrily disagrees with the many bloggers who say the 12 captains ignore the apparent success of the recent troop surge.
"What has the government of Iraq done? It has done nothing, so it doesn't matter how many tactical successes you have if you're not having any strategic successes."
Montalvan says the 12 have no political agenda; most are independents. The captains believe that current American strategy is simply arming and training Sunni and Shite militias for a future civil war. Montalvan, who worked closely with Iraqis on both his deployments, said he is disgusted with the level of corruption he witnessed. Even worse, he said, is American inaction in the face of it.
"There is still no Iraqi-American anticorruption action plan. This corruption is feeding, sustaining the sectarian divide."
On his first tour in Iraq in 2003, Montalvan worked on the Iraq-Syrian border with only 40 soldiers trying to watch over a major foreign entry point where corruption ruled. At one point things got nasty.
"Some men tried to assassinate me in December of '03 and they nearly succeeded," he said. "They were wielding knives and hand grenades, and I was injured. One of them was killed and the other was severely wounded but he staggered off."
Montalvan said he is "not altogether comfortable talking about it." He says it's something he's dealing with and will "probably deal with for sometime."
Some bloggers have called the 12 cowards and traitors.
"For those people who would rather thump their chests and say that these people don't know anything or that these people are cowards or anything along those lines, they can go to hell," he said.
When the interview was over, Montalvan went into his bathroom and got sick. He apologized, saying it may have been side effects of medications he was taking. But his friends said it was more likely the result of reliving painful events in Iraq."
"A dozen former U.S. Army captains wrote a column for The Washington Post last month entitled "The Real Iraq We Knew" in which they set out to describe the war they had experienced, instead of the one generals and politicians had described.
The officers' words have stirred controversy, with some critics calling them traitors. But that hasn't stopped them from speaking out.
In the op-ed piece, published on the fifth anniversary of the authorization of military force in Iraq, the 12 captains wrote that they had "seen the corruption and the sectarian division."
"We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out," they said.
"Captain is a unique position in the Army because you are really a cog at the center of it all," said Jason Blindauer, a veteran of five years in the Army, including three deployments to Iraq. "As we used to say, you can see the asses of the generals and the faces of the privates."
But a $35,000 retention bonus could not keep these captains in, even though at the outset they had been deeply committed to the military.
"There is no job that I ever wanted to do other than being a military officer," Blindauer said. "As far as the prospect of going to war with Iraq, I was excited about it. I was a young infantry officer with the opportunity to go to war."
Jeff Bouldin served in the Army for four years and in Iraq for 14 months. Like most of the 12 captains, he initially supported the invasion, but gradually became disillusioned with the leaders in charge of the war.
"The tactics we used and the overall goals in every province I served in had no semblance to any military logic that I had ever known," he said.
Then there was the prospect of repeated deployments without much time in between for family.
"I had a young family," Bouldin said. "I had a son who was 24 months old and I had seen him for four months of his entire life."
Blindauer and Bouldin are talking in Elizabeth Bostwick's Dallas apartment. Bostwick spent four years in the Army.
"I believed in my mission and beyond that I tried not to think about it," Bostwick said.
She said she tried not to think beyond her own security mission with the Military Police. Even though she comes from a military family, she wasn't gung-ho about the war.
"Knowing that the preponderance of your peer group is home shopping, having stable relationships not interrupted by deployments … it's disheartening," Bostwick said. "You're saying enough of this bumper-sticker patriotism. Do something about it or stop wasting my time."
To the group of 12, doing something about it means signing up to serve, and they suggest that a draft may be necessary. Jason Blindauer quotes German military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz, saying a country has to have both the strength of means and the strength of will to win a war.
"We don't have a military large enough to conduct the long-duration, low-intensity wars, and we haven't harnessed the collective will of the American people. So what good is it?" Blindauer said.
Luis Montalvan, who currently resides in Brooklyn, N.Y., joined the Army when he was 17 and stayed in for 17 years. He did two tours in Iraq. Montalvan angrily disagrees with the many bloggers who say the 12 captains ignore the apparent success of the recent troop surge.
"What has the government of Iraq done? It has done nothing, so it doesn't matter how many tactical successes you have if you're not having any strategic successes."
Montalvan says the 12 have no political agenda; most are independents. The captains believe that current American strategy is simply arming and training Sunni and Shite militias for a future civil war. Montalvan, who worked closely with Iraqis on both his deployments, said he is disgusted with the level of corruption he witnessed. Even worse, he said, is American inaction in the face of it.
"There is still no Iraqi-American anticorruption action plan. This corruption is feeding, sustaining the sectarian divide."
On his first tour in Iraq in 2003, Montalvan worked on the Iraq-Syrian border with only 40 soldiers trying to watch over a major foreign entry point where corruption ruled. At one point things got nasty.
"Some men tried to assassinate me in December of '03 and they nearly succeeded," he said. "They were wielding knives and hand grenades, and I was injured. One of them was killed and the other was severely wounded but he staggered off."
Montalvan said he is "not altogether comfortable talking about it." He says it's something he's dealing with and will "probably deal with for sometime."
Some bloggers have called the 12 cowards and traitors.
"For those people who would rather thump their chests and say that these people don't know anything or that these people are cowards or anything along those lines, they can go to hell," he said.
When the interview was over, Montalvan went into his bathroom and got sick. He apologized, saying it may have been side effects of medications he was taking. But his friends said it was more likely the result of reliving painful events in Iraq."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Analysis of Iraq War
As of late a majority of the resources of this organization have been devoted to ending the War in Iraq. I encourgae my fellow bloggers to follow suit.
I sincerely write about this topic in neither hope nor anticipation of my country, the United States loosing the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on Terror. However, because I believe that in our Democracy it is the duty of American citizens to entertain such a discussion to pledge support on the challenge of our generation.
Excerpts from the essay How the Weak Win Wars are the basis of this paper. Since the start of the War in Iraq, five items have repeatedly appeared on the media and discussions amongst the public.
1) The Motives for Going to War2) Justifications for the Iraq War3) Information provided to the American People and International Governing Bodies in regards to the War4) The legalities of charges and subsequent conviction of ousted Iraq President Saddam Hussein.
Rational leads one to question the validity of these charges based on humanitarian incursions occurring in 1982. This being the second instance the U.S has waged War in Iraq based on these identical charges. Secondly, allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), now known to be to be a false claim. Therefore one would induce charges being brought against Saddam Hussein are at the least questionable. Furthermore, there is a deeper theoretical concern; these indictments are nearly spurious unless all the citizens of Iraq equally are instituted in the opportunities manifested by a stable democratic government. Subsequently more questions arise; how can these charges be justified in light of faulty intelligence. Moreover, how are these charges justified when the motives, ethics and credibility of certain U.S. political leaders are in question?
5) The War on Terror. The readers of this paper don’t to be enlightened however the fact that Al Qaeda moved to wage war against the U.S.A. and not Iraq is worthy to be restated. It is fact not partisan rhetoric the War in Iraq has diverted government resources (law enforcement, FBI, CIA), funding, military, diplomatic resources from eliminating Al Qaeda. Great Britain, the closet ally of the United States for example has endured multiple terrorist attacks coordinated by Al Qaeda and their sympathizers. To paraphrase the words of Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair “an attack against Great Britain is an attack against America“.
Below is a summary and excerpts from an essay entitled:How the Weak Win Wars“With the U.S. military engaged in armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ivan Arreguin-Toft’s How the Weak Win Wars is a timely contribution to the ongoing debate over U.S. defense strategy in the post-September 11 security environment. First, Arreguin- Toft provides a well-structured discussion of existing theories in the literature on how weaker actors have won wars against substantially more powerful states and articulates his own hypothesis to explain this phenomenon, which he calls “strategic interaction theory.”
He postulates that intuition would tell us “power matters most,” but notes that history tells us otherwise. In fact, not only have weak actors had sporadic successes in asymmetric conflicts, but the trend of their successes is increasing.
His argument is constructed on the premise that there are four competing explanations for weak victory in asymmetric wars, each of which has weaknesses in predicting outcomes or explaining the trend of increasing weak actor victories. The first of these hypotheses focuses on the nature of the actors. In this theory, authoritarian strong actors are said to have a greater probability of success in asymmetric conflict because they tend to lack the political vulnerability of a democracy. The second theory states that the diffusion of arms, particularly since the Second World War, has closed the aggregate power gap between weak and strong. In other words, even a weak power has a chance of success when equipped with modern weaponry. The third theory is that of interest asymmetry, which asserts that asymmetric wars tend to be fought with limited means for limited ends by the strong actor, but with unlimited means for the unlimited ends by the weak. Theoretically this interest asymmetry is more important to the outcome than relative power.
The final competing explanation is Arreguin- Toft’s own theory of strategic interaction. He postulates that the interaction of the strategies employed by the actors in an asymmetric conflict is the most likely predictor of outcome. His method of proof begins by dividing military strategy into two general categories. These categories are direct, such as conventional attack or defense, and indirect, such as counter-insurgency or guerilla warfare. His thesis is that when asymmetric actors employ similar strategies, as in the cases of direct versus direct or indirect versus indirect, the conflict favors the strong. On the contrary, when the strategies are of dissimilar types, the conflict favors the weak. The bulk of How the Weak Win Wars is dedicated to five case studies chosen from the statistical sampling. They include the Russo- Murid War of 1830- 1859, the Boer War, the Italo- Ethiopian War of 1935 - 1940, the Vietnam War, and the Afghan Civil War of the 1980’s.
Finally, he refers to the current conflict in Iraq as a “costly quagmire.” Arreguin- Toft means to convince the reader that when the very strong meet the weak in asymmetric armed conflict, strategy matters more than power. His work is extremely relevant in the current geopolitical context and serves as a warning to US policy makers to get military strategy right, regardless of relative power. Arreguin- Toft’s argument makes perfectly clear the perilous consequences of neglecting the importance of strategic interaction. ( Excerpts taking from a Review Essay found in the Harvard International Review Vol. 27 # 2, pg. 78 ) ”.
Article published Checks & Balances Org 07/25/05 by Anthony T. Brooks
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Senate Debates Deadline in Iraq
1. Senate sets all-night Iraq war debate, Reuters, 07/16/07
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1635629920070716
2. "Deadline in Iraq," Chicago Tribune, http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/469521,CST-EDT-edits16.article
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1635629920070716
2. "Deadline in Iraq," Chicago Tribune, http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/469521,CST-EDT-edits16.article
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Seeking Perspective on Iraq Death Toll
By Ted Koppel
“There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.”
"It's been a brutal month for American soldiers in Iraq; but it would be a mistake to think that it's the number of deaths alone that is creating the sense of national urgency to get out. Given the right circumstances, Americans are quite prepared to tolerate far higher casualties. Roughly 43,000 people die on our roads and highways every year.
Considerable effort is expended to bring that number down: Our vehicles are increasingly built to withstand crashes. We seem to have made real progress in persuading drivers to wear seatbelts and not to consume alcoholic beverages when they're about to get behind the wheel. Law enforcement does what it can to reduce speeding. Having said that, the number of driving fatalities every year remains stubbornly constant.
Apparently, 43,000 deaths a year is a price we are prepared to pay for the benefits that motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses provide. Those benefits are such, that no politician in recent memory has seriously suggested getting rid of all motor vehicles. It simply wouldn't happen. Our economy would come to a grinding halt. The impact on the national interest would be devastating.
In another week or so, we will have lost 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. That, of course, is over a four-year period.
So, the level of outrage and the growing opposition to the Iraq war has to be connected to something other than simply the number of those killed. After all, we lose that many people in traffic accidents every month, with barely a murmur of protest.
Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.
Certainly, the United States has a moral obligation to deal with the chaos and anarchy that were, at least partially, unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that falls into the category of something we're doing for them. The president cannot and should not expect Americans to give their open-ended support to a nation that seems overwhelmingly to regard our troops as "invaders and occupiers."
What, then? There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.
Do we know for a fact that, without U.S. troops in Iraq, that country's chaos would bleed into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; Egypt, Syria and Jordan? No. But chances are better than even that it would — and you can throw Iran into the mix.
That is not an easy political argument to make: Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you'll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you'll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future."
“There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.”
"It's been a brutal month for American soldiers in Iraq; but it would be a mistake to think that it's the number of deaths alone that is creating the sense of national urgency to get out. Given the right circumstances, Americans are quite prepared to tolerate far higher casualties. Roughly 43,000 people die on our roads and highways every year.
Considerable effort is expended to bring that number down: Our vehicles are increasingly built to withstand crashes. We seem to have made real progress in persuading drivers to wear seatbelts and not to consume alcoholic beverages when they're about to get behind the wheel. Law enforcement does what it can to reduce speeding. Having said that, the number of driving fatalities every year remains stubbornly constant.
Apparently, 43,000 deaths a year is a price we are prepared to pay for the benefits that motorcycles, cars, trucks and buses provide. Those benefits are such, that no politician in recent memory has seriously suggested getting rid of all motor vehicles. It simply wouldn't happen. Our economy would come to a grinding halt. The impact on the national interest would be devastating.
In another week or so, we will have lost 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. That, of course, is over a four-year period.
So, the level of outrage and the growing opposition to the Iraq war has to be connected to something other than simply the number of those killed. After all, we lose that many people in traffic accidents every month, with barely a murmur of protest.
Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.
Certainly, the United States has a moral obligation to deal with the chaos and anarchy that were, at least partially, unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that falls into the category of something we're doing for them. The president cannot and should not expect Americans to give their open-ended support to a nation that seems overwhelmingly to regard our troops as "invaders and occupiers."
What, then? There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.
Do we know for a fact that, without U.S. troops in Iraq, that country's chaos would bleed into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; Egypt, Syria and Jordan? No. But chances are better than even that it would — and you can throw Iran into the mix.
That is not an easy political argument to make: Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you'll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you'll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future."
Sunday, May 20, 2007
White House nixes Democratic Iraq funding bill
"Posted on Friday May 18, 2007
CAPITOL HILL (AP) - Democratic congressional leaders say the White House has rejected a stripped down spending bill for the war in Iraq.
In a meeting today with the president's top aides, Democrats said they would remove (b) billions in domestic spending from an emergency appropriations measure. They also pledged to give the president the right to waive compliance with a timetable on the war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it would be an "understatement" to say he's disappointed that no agreement came from the meeting.
Earlier this month, the president vetoed a bill that would have funded the war, because it also demanded that troops start coming home in October. "
CAPITOL HILL (AP) - Democratic congressional leaders say the White House has rejected a stripped down spending bill for the war in Iraq.
In a meeting today with the president's top aides, Democrats said they would remove (b) billions in domestic spending from an emergency appropriations measure. They also pledged to give the president the right to waive compliance with a timetable on the war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it would be an "understatement" to say he's disappointed that no agreement came from the meeting.
Earlier this month, the president vetoed a bill that would have funded the war, because it also demanded that troops start coming home in October. "
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Pentagon Wants $$$700 Billion!!!
Congress must outright reject this proposal from Defense Secretary Gates.
Reject it! That is crazy money. Let me offer 2 humble suggestions to our elected representatives. 1. Fund the Dept. of Defense at 2002 Levels. 2. Inform the Department of Defense that Emergency & Supplemental Funding Bills are no longer acceptable. Meaning the War in Iraq must be worked into the existing budget for the Department of Defense.
It is long past time for Congress to take a solid stance opposing the Iraq War. This can be done without strings attached, as President G.W. Bush wants. Cut off the funds.
The fact of the matter is these requested funds belong to the tax payers, therefore how can Secretary Gates justify this request while a majority of U.S. citizens desire an end to this 'misadventure' in the Middle East? Moreover, I pose another question: how can this new Democratic Congress, put in place not by their mass appeal but because of public opposition to the War in Iraq entertain such a motion?
Politicians in this matter are too politically correct and cautious. America is calling out for leadership.
This same week as I write this post, “the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 out of 275 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal”.
The citizens of America no longer support additional tax dollars moving outside of the United States to the citizens of Iraq void of binding benchmarks for success and absolute consequences for failure.
Source:
Politicians in this matter are too politically correct and cautious. America is calling out for leadership.
This same week as I write this post, “the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 out of 275 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal”.
The citizens of America no longer support additional tax dollars moving outside of the United States to the citizens of Iraq void of binding benchmarks for success and absolute consequences for failure.
Source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10098216
I hate to go off topic, but I just heard a GOP loyalist on the radio say that they believe “if we leave Iraq she’s afraid the terrorist will come after us”. Let me tell you something, fine. Fight the terrorist! I would support $700 Billion for that. Who attacked America on 9/11? It was neither Iraq nor its former dictator. Look here, WE (our beloved nation) has been at War in Iraq and politically at War at home. Can we all be sensible, how much longer will Iraq War supports tolerate incompetent leadership in President G.W. Bush, the Generals in Iraq, CIA and at the Pentagon? It is you whom are preventing the nation from ending this war and moving forward. You have my blog to defend your positions.
Comments welcome
Sunday, May 06, 2007
BUSH Finally Defines Iraq Success
Americans have been asking a simple question for years. What is meant by success in Iraq?President Bush finally anwers the question.
Source: Agence France Presse 05/02/2007
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 (AFP) -
US President George W. Bush on Wednesday was to host top Democrats to wrangle a truce in the bitter feud over the Iraq war one day after he vetoed their effort to tie funding to a withdrawal timeline.
Hours before White House talks also set to include Bush's Republican allies, each side urged the other to compromise amid increasing talk of agreeing to "benchmarks" for the Baghdad government but no sign of a deal on a pull-out.
"I am confident that, with goodwill on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and the flexibility they need to do the job," said the president.
Bush, an unpopular leader waging an unpopular war, signalled some of his strongest support yet for clear "benchmarks" for the Baghdad government as he addressed a very friendly crowd at a national builders' meeting here.
"Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do," he said. "They've got a lot more to do and the United States expects them to do it, just like I expect them to remain courageous and just like they expect us to keep our word."
But he rejected any "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq, the chief reason he gave Tuesday for vetoing a 124-billion-dollar spending bill for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that also set October 1 as the start date for withdrawing the 146,000 US troops in Iraq.
The Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, said he hoped the chamber would vote on a new Iraq war budget within two weeks, and signalled that the party would not choke off funding for US troops.
"We will not allow this to languish," he said. "We are going to fund the troops, we are not going to leave our troops in harm's way without the resources that they need."
Such a schedule would allow the Senate to take up its own version and send the new emergency bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Bush at the end of May, he said.
"What we can do is bring about benchmarks for accountability," Democratic Representative Kendrick Meek told CNN television Wednesday. "It's now going on five years. The president wants another blank check."
Bush, in remarks to a builders' association, defended his decision to send more US troops to Iraq this year and pleaded for patience with his approach amid polls showing that both he and the war are deeply unpopular.
"We are heading in the right direction," he said, telling the friendly audience that signs of progress in Iraq were "not headline-grabbing" and "certainly can't compete with a car bomb or a suicide attack."
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox television that benchmarks for the Iraqis government "is the place where compromise could well be achieved."
"There's bipartisan frustration -- frustration in the Congress with the Iraqi government. I think we can reach an agreement on the kinds of requirements of the Iraqi government that they ought to be pursuing," he said.
He cited the Baghdad government's struggle with passing legislation on oil revenue sharing, setting up local elections, and other matters.
"There are a number of other things they know they need to do in order to continue to enjoy our confidence. And most of it has not yet been done," McConnell warned.
Bush also seemed to fine-tune his definition of victory in the war, saying: "The definition of success as I described is 'sectarian violence down.' Success is not, 'no violence.'"
"There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives," he said.
Bush had most recently defined success as creating a government in Iraq that can "sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself."
Source: Agence France Presse 05/02/2007
WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 (AFP) -
US President George W. Bush on Wednesday was to host top Democrats to wrangle a truce in the bitter feud over the Iraq war one day after he vetoed their effort to tie funding to a withdrawal timeline.
Hours before White House talks also set to include Bush's Republican allies, each side urged the other to compromise amid increasing talk of agreeing to "benchmarks" for the Baghdad government but no sign of a deal on a pull-out.
"I am confident that, with goodwill on both sides, that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and the flexibility they need to do the job," said the president.
Bush, an unpopular leader waging an unpopular war, signalled some of his strongest support yet for clear "benchmarks" for the Baghdad government as he addressed a very friendly crowd at a national builders' meeting here.
"Iraq's leaders still have got a lot to do," he said. "They've got a lot more to do and the United States expects them to do it, just like I expect them to remain courageous and just like they expect us to keep our word."
But he rejected any "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq, the chief reason he gave Tuesday for vetoing a 124-billion-dollar spending bill for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that also set October 1 as the start date for withdrawing the 146,000 US troops in Iraq.
The Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, said he hoped the chamber would vote on a new Iraq war budget within two weeks, and signalled that the party would not choke off funding for US troops.
"We will not allow this to languish," he said. "We are going to fund the troops, we are not going to leave our troops in harm's way without the resources that they need."
Such a schedule would allow the Senate to take up its own version and send the new emergency bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Bush at the end of May, he said.
"What we can do is bring about benchmarks for accountability," Democratic Representative Kendrick Meek told CNN television Wednesday. "It's now going on five years. The president wants another blank check."
Bush, in remarks to a builders' association, defended his decision to send more US troops to Iraq this year and pleaded for patience with his approach amid polls showing that both he and the war are deeply unpopular.
"We are heading in the right direction," he said, telling the friendly audience that signs of progress in Iraq were "not headline-grabbing" and "certainly can't compete with a car bomb or a suicide attack."
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Fox television that benchmarks for the Iraqis government "is the place where compromise could well be achieved."
"There's bipartisan frustration -- frustration in the Congress with the Iraqi government. I think we can reach an agreement on the kinds of requirements of the Iraqi government that they ought to be pursuing," he said.
He cited the Baghdad government's struggle with passing legislation on oil revenue sharing, setting up local elections, and other matters.
"There are a number of other things they know they need to do in order to continue to enjoy our confidence. And most of it has not yet been done," McConnell warned.
Bush also seemed to fine-tune his definition of victory in the war, saying: "The definition of success as I described is 'sectarian violence down.' Success is not, 'no violence.'"
"There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives," he said.
Bush had most recently defined success as creating a government in Iraq that can "sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself."
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Bush Lengthens Tours of Duty
Political
"Bush Lengthens Tours of Duty In Combat Zones --- Step May Further Strain Military, Vex Congress; Political Timing in Play?
Source: The Wall Street Journal 04/12/2007
WASHINGTON -- In a move sure to increase the strain on the Army and aggravate tensions with Congress over an already unpopular war, the Bush administration announced that all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will spend 15 months in the combat zones instead of 12 months.
The military's need for the step is straightforward: It will allow the Bush administration to maintain the president's recently implemented "surge" of 30,000 troops in Iraq for at least another 12 months, if President Bush decides that is necessary.
But the announcement comes at an awkward time for the administration in its struggles to maintain both public and congressional support for the Iraq war. The White House is trying to resist growing public calls to set a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq. The longer tours are also certain to ratchet up tensions with lawmakers as Congress and the White House move closer to open confrontation over an emergency war-spending bill, which Mr. Bush has promised to veto unless Democrats remove provisions calling for a pullout from Iraq next year.
Republicans acknowledged deep concern about a recent drumbeat of politically unpopular news about Iraq. On Monday, the Pentagon disclosed that 13,000 National Guard troops would soon be sent to Iraq, many for the second time, an announcement that sparked fierce criticism from governors and lawmakers from both parties.
From a long-term political standpoint, though, announcing those steps actually may help the White House manage the fallout. Some Republican congressional staffers argued that it may be better for the administration, already locked in a power struggle with Capitol Hill, to be sure all the difficult Iraq news emerges at once rather than in a steady stream of leaks and announcements to extend tours of troops as the 2008 election cycle grows closer. "It may be easier to take one big hit now than to suffer a death by a thousand cuts," said one senior Republican foreign-relations staffer.
Indeed, the Pentagon made no effort to downplay its decision, but rather had Defense Secretary Robert Gates announce it at a news conference. "This policy is a difficult but necessary interim step," Mr. Gates told reporters.
Democrats and a few Republicans were quick to criticize the move, arguing that the longer deployments would push the military closer to a breaking point. "The decision to extend the tours of U.S. service members by three months is an urgent warning that the administration's Iraq policy cannot be sustained without doing terrible long-term damage to our military," said Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Instead of escalating the war with no end in sight, we have to start bringing it to a responsible conclusion."
The Pentagon said the extension of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months would have one beneficial effect for troops: Mr. Gates said the step would help guarantee that military personnel will have at least 12 months at home to get equipment, see their families and train for any future redeployments. "Instead of dribbling out these notifications to units, what we're trying to do here is provide some long-term predictability for the soldiers and their families about how long their deployments will be and how long they will be at home," Mr. Gates said.
Senior military officials say troops should ideally get about two years at home between 12-month deployments to both rest up and prepare for the next round of fighting. In recent months the Army has struggled to field critical pieces of gear, such as the latest armored Humvees and some advanced surveillance equipment, to soldiers in time for their deployments. Because of the relatively short period of time between deployments, troops often are able to get only a rudimentary education in the culture and tribes of the areas to which they are being sent.
The heavy demand for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan also means there are few, if any, Army units back in the U.S. that are trained, equipped and ready to deal with other crises that might pop up around the world.
As a result, critics yesterday charged that extended tours in Iraq are breaking the Army. "The secretary's announcement extending the deployments of active-duty Army units is a stark admission that the administration's policies in Iraq are doing permanent damage to our military," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R., Neb.), who has been an outspoken critic of the war.
Mr. Gates rejected such suggestions, and pointed to the Army's ability to hit retention and recruiting goals as a sign that the service, while badly strained, isn't on the verge of breaking. "If the Army were broken, you would not see these kinds of retention rates and our ability to recruit," he said.
Still, the Army, which is currently in the process of adding 65,000 troops over the next five years to expand to an active-duty force of 547,000 soldiers, has had to pay a steep price to reach its recruiting goals in 2006, lowering standards to take a larger number of recruits who scored in the lower percentiles on aptitude tests or needed waivers of past criminal activity. The service has been able to meet retention goals for the enlisted ranks, but only by paying out about $735 million in retention bonuses in 2006 up from $85 million in 2003. Today, it is short about 3,000 active-duty officers, a deficiency that it says will grow to about 3,700 in 2008. It is down more than 7,500 reserve and National Guard officers, according to internal Army documents.
Yesterday's announcement doesn't necessarily indicate the administration will extend the surge of 30,000 troops into next year. Pentagon officials say they will re-evaluate their strategy in early fall. At the core of surge strategy is the belief that the extra troops can improve security and increase the chances that the current Iraqi government can win over an increasingly frustrated population.
"What we are doing . . . is buying time for the Iraqi government to provide the good governance and the economic activity that's required," said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Gates hinted at some frustration with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which is dominated by Shiite Muslim parties and has been slow to reach out to Sunni Muslim groups, an essential step to ending the war. Asked if he was happy with the pace of reconciliation, Mr. Gates replied, "I'd like to see it be moving faster." "
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Will Bush Compromise on Iraq?
Political
Bush urges talks over war funding, warns clock is ticking
Source: Agence France Presse 04/10/2007
FAIRFAX, Virginia, April 10, 2007 (AFP) -
US President George W. Bush on Tuesday invited leading US lawmakers to talks to end a stalemate over funding the unpopular war in Iraq, warning there was no time to lose.
Leading Democrats, while not refusing the invitation outright, said they would reject any talks with preset conditions in the dispute over a war spending bill that includes a schedule for troop pullout from Iraq.
"When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste," Bush said, inviting "leaders from ... both political parties, to meet with me at the White House next week."
"I know we have our differences over the best course. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need," he said during a visit to war veterans in Fairfax, Virginia, close to Washington.
Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, are trying to end the war in Iraq by tying military funding to a withdrawal of US troops in 2008.
The House and Senate, which have both passed bills with different deadlines, must iron out the differences between their bills and send one to the president for his signature to become law.
With Iraq this week marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would reject any talks with preset conditions.
"The president is inviting us to the White House with preconditions. It's not the way we should operate. He must deal with Congress, we are an independent branch of government," Reid said.
The White House was careful to make clear that the invitation did not signal any readiness to compromise, and Bush repeated his vow to veto any legislation that ties release of war spending funds to a timetable for troop withdrawal.
"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops, without an artificial timetable for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stressed that the president's invitation was "not a meeting in order to compromise."
"This is a meeting to discuss the way forward. Because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the president's veto. And at the same time they say that they want to fund the troops," she added.
"Maybe they need to hear again from the president about ... why he thinks that it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal."
In a joint statement Reid issued with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they said "any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions.
"The president is demanding we renew his blank check for war without end ... we renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."
Perino called the Democrats' statement "a knee-jerk reaction that's unfortunate."
Bush has called on a skeptical public to give his new "surge" strategy time to work, saying the commanders on the ground in Iraq were already seeing "encouraging signs" that an extra 25,000 troops being deployed in the country were helping to secure Baghdad.
"The Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush warned.
He said the military would soon notify Congress, which holds the power of the purse, that the army would need to transfer 1.6 billion dollars from other military accounts to cover the shortfall.
This was on top of 1.7 billion dollars already transferred in March, the president said.
If by May no bill on funding the war has been passed into law, the army could have to slow or freeze funding for depots where equipment is repaired and mull a delay to military training programs, Bush said.
"These actions are only the beginning. And the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be," Bush said.
Bush urges talks over war funding, warns clock is ticking
Source: Agence France Presse 04/10/2007
FAIRFAX, Virginia, April 10, 2007 (AFP) -
US President George W. Bush on Tuesday invited leading US lawmakers to talks to end a stalemate over funding the unpopular war in Iraq, warning there was no time to lose.
Leading Democrats, while not refusing the invitation outright, said they would reject any talks with preset conditions in the dispute over a war spending bill that includes a schedule for troop pullout from Iraq.
"When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste," Bush said, inviting "leaders from ... both political parties, to meet with me at the White House next week."
"I know we have our differences over the best course. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need," he said during a visit to war veterans in Fairfax, Virginia, close to Washington.
Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, are trying to end the war in Iraq by tying military funding to a withdrawal of US troops in 2008.
The House and Senate, which have both passed bills with different deadlines, must iron out the differences between their bills and send one to the president for his signature to become law.
With Iraq this week marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would reject any talks with preset conditions.
"The president is inviting us to the White House with preconditions. It's not the way we should operate. He must deal with Congress, we are an independent branch of government," Reid said.
The White House was careful to make clear that the invitation did not signal any readiness to compromise, and Bush repeated his vow to veto any legislation that ties release of war spending funds to a timetable for troop withdrawal.
"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops, without an artificial timetable for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stressed that the president's invitation was "not a meeting in order to compromise."
"This is a meeting to discuss the way forward. Because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the president's veto. And at the same time they say that they want to fund the troops," she added.
"Maybe they need to hear again from the president about ... why he thinks that it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal."
In a joint statement Reid issued with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they said "any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions.
"The president is demanding we renew his blank check for war without end ... we renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."
Perino called the Democrats' statement "a knee-jerk reaction that's unfortunate."
Bush has called on a skeptical public to give his new "surge" strategy time to work, saying the commanders on the ground in Iraq were already seeing "encouraging signs" that an extra 25,000 troops being deployed in the country were helping to secure Baghdad.
"The Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush warned.
He said the military would soon notify Congress, which holds the power of the purse, that the army would need to transfer 1.6 billion dollars from other military accounts to cover the shortfall.
This was on top of 1.7 billion dollars already transferred in March, the president said.
If by May no bill on funding the war has been passed into law, the army could have to slow or freeze funding for depots where equipment is repaired and mull a delay to military training programs, Bush said.
"These actions are only the beginning. And the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be," Bush said.
Monday, March 26, 2007
U.S. HOUSE MOVES TO END WAR
WILL THE U.S. SENATE RESPOND IN KIND?
President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."
I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".
Political
US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -
The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.
"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.
"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."
Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.
Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.
"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.
But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.
"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.
The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.
It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.
If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.
The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.
The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027
Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.
President G.W. Bush said "These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects," he said. "This is not going to happen."I say "Its time for President G.W. Bush to listen to the American people".
Political
US House ties Iraq war funding to withdrawal timeline
Source: Agence France Presse 03/23/2007 WASHINGTON, March 23, 2007 (AFP) -
The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.
In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
"This war is a grotesque mistake," House speaker Nancy Pelosi said, closing a passionate and often acrimonious debate.
"The American people will not support a war without end, and neither should this Congress."
But an infuriated Bush quickly vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, accusing Democratic leaders of second guessing the generals running the war and of abdicating their responsibilities to the US armed forces.
"Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq."
Bush said the bill had no chance of becoming law: "I will veto it if it comes to my desk."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the bill would put "handcuffs on generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, privates and everybody else."
Two Republicans broke with their leaders and voted in favor of the bill. Fourteen Democrats voted against their own party's bid to end the war and Bush's surge of more than 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
The legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan presented Republican lawmakers with a dilemma: if they opposed the timetable plan, they risked being portrayed as voting against a bill providing funding for American troops locked in fierce combat.
Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: "We are going to bring those troops home, we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.
"The American people in the last election sent a message, they said we want the Iraqis to solve their own problems in Iraq," he said, in a speech on the House floor greeted by applause and a standing ovation by Democrats.
But Republican Minority leader John Boehner said the bill would send a damning message about the US commitment to fighting global terrorism.
"We are in the midst of a fight with an enemy that is not just in Iraq, that's all over the world," he said.
The 124-billion-dollar emergency supplemental spending package for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would tie the deployment of combat forces to strict standards for rest, equipment and training of troops.
It also would create benchmarks that would hold the Iraqi government accountable for progress toward self-governance and security.
If the Iraqis fail to meet the objectives, a withdrawal of troops would have to begin within months.
No matter how the Iraqi government performs, the bill calls for the withdrawals to begin in March 2008 and for most US combat forces to be out of Iraq by August 31, 2008.
The package passed after the Democrats overcame divisions within their own ranks from lawmakers who had been demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Despite Bush's stand, Democrats saw the bill as part of a concerted political campaign to force the end of US involvement in Iraq and pressure the president's Republican backers.
Separately, a Senate committee on Thursday approved its own draft emergency war funding measure, setting a March 2008 deadline to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq.
The House and Senate versions must be reconciled, then the president must sign the measure for it to become law. To override a presidential veto, each chamber would have to secure a two-thirds majority.
The Democratic-controlled Senate last week rejected a bid to pass a separate binding resolution that would have called for US troops to be pulled out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
NPR Report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9121027
Commentary: Every Senator (Democrat, Independent & Republican) who sponsors or votes for a non-binding resolution specifically in regards to the War in Iraq, in my opinion, should not be re-elected. I believe this because a non-binding resolution has no authority, it is a waist of paper.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Senate debates withdrawing US troops
Political
Senate debates withdrawing US troops from Iraq within one year
Source: Agence France Presse 03/14/2007
WASHINGTON, March 14, 2007 (AFP) -
Congress on Wednesday began its latest showdown over Iraq, this time over setting a deadline of a little more than a year for full withdrawal of US troops from the war-ravaged country.
Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate found themselves on opposite sides of a heated debate over whether or not to set the date of March 31, 2008 for the complete withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq.
Under the legislation drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, US troop redeployments would have to commence within 120 days of the bill's passage.
Reid said Wednesday that after nearly five years of failed Bush policies in Iraq, the time had come for a new direction.
"This war has taken a tremendous toll on our country, our troops, and their families, and our standing in the world," he said on the Senate floor.
Another top Democrat, US Senator Ted Kennedy, called the Iraq debate -- which has consumed many hours of floor time in the weeks since Democrats took control of Congress last January -- "the overarching issue of our time."
"This is a defining moment. The American people are watching. The world is watching," Kennedy said.
"The issue is clear: Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission and beginning to bring them home? Or will we stand with the President and keep our soldiers in Iraq's civil war?"
Kennedy continued: "History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path, or embrace a new direction."
Democrats believe they have a mandate from US voters to begin a US troop withdrawal, after winning big in November elections and a stream of opinion polls showing strong public support for leaving Iraq.
But Republicans are zealous in their defense of keeping US troops in Iraq, and even adding thousands more as part of the "surge" strategy put in place by US President George W. Bush.
US Senator John McCain -- a US presidential contender and perhaps the most outspoken advocate in the Senate for keeping US troops in Iraq -- said repercussions of withdrawing US troops would make the debacle of Vietnam seem minor by comparison.
"If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people," said McCain.
"If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back -- possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
His words reprised an argument made earlier in the week by US Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group.
"A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror and result in chaos and mounting danger," the US vice president said.
"For the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen."
But Reid insisted Wednesday that America simply could no longer sustain the high price of its military mission there, noting: "3,200 American soldiers, sailors and marines have been killed in Iraq."
"We've seen tens of thousands wounded men and women who have come home to a health care system unprepared and ill-equipped to care for them, our army has been stretched dangerously thin, and our Treasury has been spending week after bloody week two billion dollars each week.
He stressed that he believed US military operations in Iraq have faltered because of lack of leadership by the commander-in-chief.
"President Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace, much less the war," said Reid.
Congress, the Constitution and War Powers
I try to refrain from using such strong words on my blog but I must coin a phrase for the purpose of accurately describing discussions by politicians that Congress does not possess the authority to end the War in Iraq.
The President yes has veto power but G.W. Bush is not a king in addition the President is not granted the final word in regards to War according to the Constitution, Congress can overturn such a veto. The Law clearly gives Congress power in that Congress shall declare war, Congress shall control the purse and Congress shall make law.
These rich big wigs dressed as representatives on Capital Hill all need to resign allowing regular folk to take their seats.
A vote by Congress even under threat of veto would be a grand political statement that the President must then respond too. A member of Congress should never allow for the shadow of a presidential veto to sway their solemn duty to represent their constituents.
Such an assertion that Congress lacks the authority to end this War in Iraq, and I say this with all reasonable respect, is out right bull shit.
Comments Welcome.
Tell your Rep what you think about Iraq:
Tell your Senator what you think about Iraq:
Monday, March 12, 2007
6 months left in Iraq
Republican leaders are claiming that liberals do not support the troops. It seems that Democratic leaders are afraid of taking a clear stance on the Iraq War, so let me entertain you with what I believe.
The work of U.S. troops in Iraq in done. It is time to bring all American troops back home.
The House is discussing legislation to task the Bush Administration with providing results in Iraq by July 2007. My opinion is based on what I have heard military generals and a former soldier say; that American troops could be withdrawn from Iraq in 6 months.
I urge and propose for the United States House and the Senate to vote to end the Iraq War and begin bringing our soldiers home starting September 2007. To make this date LAW for the final End of War against Iraq.
No matter what any corrupted political pundit will tell you, it was in fact the War in Iraq that gave the Democrats control of Congress. It is their mandate to end this debacle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must lead the nation in this transition and allow for the House Bills on Iraq to be voting on. The message sent by the American people is not a desire for more of the same or even tolerance for a change in strategy. The American people spoke; WE want an end to this war.
The work of U.S. troops in Iraq in done. It is time to bring all American troops back home.
The House is discussing legislation to task the Bush Administration with providing results in Iraq by July 2007. My opinion is based on what I have heard military generals and a former soldier say; that American troops could be withdrawn from Iraq in 6 months.
I urge and propose for the United States House and the Senate to vote to end the Iraq War and begin bringing our soldiers home starting September 2007. To make this date LAW for the final End of War against Iraq.
No matter what any corrupted political pundit will tell you, it was in fact the War in Iraq that gave the Democrats control of Congress. It is their mandate to end this debacle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must lead the nation in this transition and allow for the House Bills on Iraq to be voting on. The message sent by the American people is not a desire for more of the same or even tolerance for a change in strategy. The American people spoke; WE want an end to this war.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Iraq welcomes British troop reduction
Political
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
