Please feel free to consider this and "Open Thread" until I return.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
So who are these “GAO” folks and just why would the White House take issue with them?
”The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. GAO is often called the "congressional watchdog" because it investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.” Hmmm, independent….nonpartisan…..what could be wrong with that? “…works for Congress.”…Maybe that could be an issue.
”GAO gathers information to help Congress determine how well executive branch agencies are doing their jobs. GAO’s work routinely answers such basic questions as whether government programs are meeting their objectives or providing good service to the public. Ultimately, GAO ensures that government is accountable to the American people.” Oh, there you go, “…determine how well executive branch agencies are doing their jobs….” Well Bush certainly can’t have that. But this must be the real show stopper: “Ultimately, GAO ensures that government is accountable to the American people.”
So what is George taking issue with today? Well it seems that the independent, nonpartisan GAO has released another report on the situation in Iraq. I’ll bet you can guess what they have to say. ” In a draft report circulated this week, the Government Accountability Office concluded that at least 13 of the 18 political and security goals for the Iraqi government have not been met.” Obviously sensing a flaw in the GAO’s reporting, ”Administration officials swiftly objected to several of the findings and dismissed the report as unrealistically harsh because it assigned pass-or-fail grades to each benchmark, with little nuance.”
Then there is the official line from Whitehouse propagandist Tony Snow(job):
”“The real question that people have is: What’s going on in Iraq? Are we making progress? Militarily, is the surge having an impact?” said White House spokesman Tony Snow. “The answer is yes. There’s no question about it.”” Hmm, no question about it?
”But Democrats and even some Republicans say military progress made in recent weeks is not the issue. If Baghdad politicians refuse to reach a lasting political settlement that can influence the sectarian-fueled violence, the increase in troops is useless, they said.
“By almost every measurable measure of progress, they have not only failed to progress, they have in many cases gone backwards,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., after his recent trip to Iraq.” (SIDE NOTE: I wonder if Rep. Baird met Rep. Altmire during their recent trips?)
”The GAO report is one of several assessments called for in May legislation that funded the war: Retired Gen. James Jones briefs Congress next week on his assessment of the Iraqi security forces; Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, testify the week of Sept. 10. Bush will deliver his own progress report by Sept. 15.” Oh, and by the way, did anyone mention that Bush will be asking for another $50BILLION during that same time frame?
Stay tuned.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
"WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington."
While certainly no fan of "The Torture Guy", my initial thought is not one of satisfaction that this assault on our legal system will be leaving. No, what I see here is yet another case (ala Scooter Libby) of a Bush Administration official falling on that rubber sword to prevent Congress and the American people from learning the truth of Bush's complicity in crimes against our country.
With impeachment proceedings gaining significant traction in the House, Gonzales will resign; thereby thwarting any open investigation into the wrongdoing on his part while Attorney General and, more importantly, while Whitehouse Council. Obvioulsy any investigation of Gonzales would lead directly to Bush. Can a pardon be far behind?
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Guest columnist
Our troops have earned more time
By Brian Baird
Special to The Times
Now, while I would normally use this space to offer my own observations on Rep. Baird’s piece, I believe that thehim over at EFFin’ Unsound does a much better job than I could begin to do. I do have one observation that I cannot let go unsaid.
”Our troops have earned more time” Congressman, our troops have earned leadership. Advancing the Rovian strategy of invoking “our troops” into what is purely a policy discussion is beneath a United States Congressman. What’s next; “Support our Troops – Support the War”?
You say in your Times piece, “… As one soldier said to me, "We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn't make sense to quit now when we're finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I'm willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we're making progress and support us."” Now I don’t know which soldiers you are exposed to when you go on Bush’s guided tours of Iraq but maybe you should know that there are other soldiers with different points of view. And while you say, ” I do not know the details of what the September report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.” maybe you should read the original Petraeus Report and ask yourself again if this is the right person to place your confidence in.
Our troops deserve leadership. ”The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run.” How many lives are you willing to gamble away? ”We are going to have to begin to withdraw troops next spring because our equipment and our soldiers are wearing out.” How many names would you see added to the IWR News before the equipment wears out?
The invasion was wrong. The continuing occupation is wrong. And sir, your current assessment is not going to ever make those things right.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
The US Congress has now complete 2 weeks of "Summer Recess."
US Fatalities = 53
US Wounded = 117
Members of the Bush Administration held "accountable" = 0
George W. Bush has now completed his 1st week of "August in Crawford - 2007"
US Fatalities = 33
US Wounded = 30
US Constitution Violated = ?????????????????
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
From all the posters and commenters here at The Left Shue, we wish you a speedy recovery and rehab from your surgery!
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Published: August 19, 2007 - The New York Times
Baghdad
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
"TAL AL AZIZZIYAH, Iraq — The pungent smell of the dead hangs low in this village, and not even the colorful headdresses the men have wrapped across their faces can keep it out.
“Come here,” a man shouts from atop a pile of rubble, summoning help from other men who are digging through the debris. His shovel has hit something. The digging quickens and dust fills the air. Then a lifeless arm appears, and soon the top half of a woman has been uncovered. The remains are placed in a pink floral comforter and carried off."
And yet there are those who believe that the "surge" is working and that Bush should be left in charge of the operation.
God, Allah, someone forgive us............
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Why would I be saying this? Why should any body care? Well it seems that there are a great many folks in the Democratic Party who believe that, if you question an elected Democratic representative, you are displaying the greatest disloyalty to the Democratic Party. Just this week a new acquaintance has suggested that I am ”…spouting anti-Democratic propaganda from the same folks who brought you the "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" lie.” and that this Blog, ”exists to demonize Democrats who don't toe the Green Party line.”
What has brought this latest round of “loyalty checking”? Apparently Chantel read my previous entry on Congressman Brian Baird's (D-WA3) recent statement that he favors a continuation of the so-called surge in Iraq to be an attack on Democrats. She equates my questioning of his rationale for his position as somehow blaming him for the mess there. ”Look, Baird may be wrong about extending the surge, but the war is not his fault.” In point of fact, my post said exactly that. Baird voted against the invasion of Iraq but that his current position on the "surge" is wrong. Oh well....
OK, so this is how it works. In a democracy (or representative democracy to be more precise) I am offered a choice for the person who will represent me in Congress. As I have pointed out above, the Republican platform essentially knocks any of those folks out of contention. In an ideal world, I would then be left with a choice of Democratic candidates who would vie for my support in a primary election. I would then fight for “my candidate” until such time as the primary would declare an official Democratic candidate for the general election. (Now, as I found out last year, even fighting for a candidate who is not an INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT can get you in hot water with some folks.) After the primary I am free to support the Democratic nominee or simply sit on the sidelines and vote “D” in November. ---Oh yeah, as for the Green party thing, I wouldn’t mind seeing more parties involved in our elections but, until they can do a better job of articulating a platform and fielding candidates at more levels of government, I am not spending much time with that notion.
But we are not talking (entirely) about an election here. We are talking about those who have already been elected and are now on the hook to do the actual job of governing and representing the people. As a citizen of the United States I have a right and an obligation to hold any and all elected officials ACCOUNTABLE for the things they say and the way they vote. It is a foregone conclusion that no matter what I say, I will not have any affect on how any elected Republican congress member (Hastings, McMorris-Rodgers, or Reichert) votes. I have however contributed money and time (in the form of the written word) against all three of them and I expect I will do so again in 2008. No, my time is best spent attempting to influence the very people who seek my vote and profess to represent my Democratic Party values. When any member of the Democratic Party begins to use the same language as the Republicans, it is the obligation of every Democrat to challenge them and to hold them ACCOUNTABLE. To do less is blind allegiance.
If what I write encourages someone to challenge a Rick Larsen or a Brian Baird in a Democratic primary, then so much the better for our democracy.
Finally, lest some think this needs saying. Just as in any family, I reserve the right to say anything I feel compelled to say about my siblings but let someone from outside my family offer anything resembling criticism or challenge and I will be the first that you must pass.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
”"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."”
OK, for starters, while Baird did in fact vote against the authorization to invade, he like the rest of our congressional delegation (except Jim McDermott) has vote FOR every supplemental spending authorization that has come before him until this year. I would not say that you could call that voting against the continuing mis-management of the occupation. Then there is the troubling “But we’re on the ground now” thing. Congressman, we have been knee deep in bloody sand for over FOUR YEARS now!
Baird also says, ”…the United States tore up Iraq with its invasion in 2003, dismantling civil government and industries and tossing a half-million people out of work, but that three years of U.S. help is not enough to let Iraq rebuild.”
Would someone buy the congressman a calendar? It’s FOUR YEARS! And what does Baird suggest we do to improve the situation?
”…He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."”
Oh, I see. More blood and money will do the trick.
He sums up by saying, ”…he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:
• "One, I think we're making real progress."
• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."”
Well Congressman Baird seems to have grasped the Republican talking points quite well. Increased casualties (both American and Iraqi) point to “progress” and, despite the fact that every piece of legislation put forth by the Democrats calls for a gradual re-deployment of American troops (taking up to two years to complete) they should be defined as “pulling back precipitously.”
Let’s get real here. In FOUR YEARS, the United States military, while having successfully routed the Iraqi military and deposed Saddam Hussein, has not made Iraq any more secure. Indeed, it is widely recognized that our military presence in that country has significantly increased the threat to the civilian population while we have pursued a policy of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” And while Baird may have been taken to the same Ramadi market that McCain and Lieberman shop at, I would suggest that the Yazidis might disagree with Baird’s assessment of "progress."
As far as our responsibility to the Iraqis, Rep. Baird is obviously correct. However, his belief that a continuing military strategy is going to ever produce the results that the Iraqis deserve is well off the mark. Let’s keep the record straight. George W. Bush has had unfettered control over every aspect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq for FOUR YEARS (I hope Rep. Baird is getting this point). Every indication coming from DC is that the Democrats are going to do nothing to change the “leadership” of this ongoing cluster-f&*%k. So, what would lead anyone to believe that the same people who broke it, ms-managed it, and still control it, will do anything to fix it? If Rep. Baird is truly concerned about the Iraqi people he would be making every effort to encourage greater multi-national security operations in that country while US military forces disengage as quickly as is practicable, thereby removing the impression of an endless US occupation. US dollars and technical expertise need to flow freely to the Iraqi government so that they may take charge of their own re-building efforts.
The expression goes: "You Broke It - You Fix It." However, you don't ask the bull in the china shop to mend the broken china.
[UPDATE 8/25/2007]
Associated Press
Updated: 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
"BAGHDAD - This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.
Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month’s Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken."
It's called "Whack-a-Mole" and our troops deserve a better strategy.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Hi folks,
Now that my fight with Stacy Taylor, who is subbing for Randi Rhodes this week on Air America, on the merits of having a draft, is finished (for now). I wanted to write this little opinion I have about 4-H and politicians.
Many of these candidates are under a microscope which gets out of focus daily but the truth in what they say comes clearly to the surface in the way they act.
My daughter was at the fair recently with her 4-H group. She has a Bantam Chicken and was in the competition in two of four classes.
Everyone had his or her chicken in top shape. They were all dressed to the nines. The judge of the poultry division was very thoughtful and kind. There were girls and boys of all ages participating. As you can imagine I was holding my breath being that this was my daughters first year in 4-H and didn’t know what to expect. The judging was done one by one face-to-face.
The one thing that stood out in the questioning by the judge was when she asked the children to “name some of the faults that they thought their chicken had” using the book of standards for a guide.
I was impressed with the honesty and knowledge that the children had when they explained some of the things, which may be wrong with their chickens. Not one of them seemed to get nervous or changed their composure. As a matter of fact, they seemed excited to point out these faults to show the judge what they have learned that makes a chicken a champion.
What my story is meant to convey most is that the character of an individual is demonstrated through being sincere and truthful in their perceptions and proud of the honor they have by being honest and principled.
This is a leadership quality that no amount of money can buy!
Isn’t this the way a real leader should be?
I think our children have what it takes to restore the true leadership qualities that many adults have lost forever.
Ozy
P.S. My daughter won Grand Champion in her class =)
Read the following story and think about my point.
Helen Thomas, one of the few remaining journalists in the Washington Press Corps writes about the latest act of capitulation from the so-called Democratic Majority in Congress:
Yet again, the Democrats roll over
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
“WASHINGTON -- President Bush has the Democrats' number on Capitol Hill. All he has to do is play the fear card and invoke the war on terror and they will cave.
What's more, the president has found out that he can break the law and the rubber stamp
Democratic Congress will give him a pass every time.
The fear of being branded "soft on terrorism" was enough to make the Democrats capitulate once again to the Bush administration's demands. Or was it simply a looming vacation and beckoning campaign travel that led them to desert the nation's capital after giving the National Security Agency the power to expand its eavesdropping program without a warrant.”
Ms Thomas goes on to explain the dangers of the new legislation and how the same people who will choose the targets of the wiretaps will also be the ones responsible for oversight of the program (straight out of Orwellian logic). She then questions Bush’s need for more unchecked spying authority. In doing so she harkens back to the prototype example from which Bush and Cheney have modeled their Whitehouse.
”In ordering wiretapping without a warrant, Bush seemed to think that the laws did not apply to him. The compliant FISA court has turned down only one request for a warrant in the past two years. So what's his problem with obeying the law?
He seems to be giving credence to President Nixon's famous quote: "If a president does it, it's not illegal."”
What really bothers me here is that most congressional Democrats seem to believe that line of reasoning as well.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Over the last week, some 26 American troops have been killed in Iraq. The number of Iraqis killed (Iraqi deaths are estimates only as there is no reliable reporting agency for these figures) numbered between 350 and 600. Also this week, it was reported that the total number of American troops currently in Iraq is at an all time record high of 162,000.
Meanwhile back in DC, the US Congress has also decided that they needed a break from the grind of defending their lack of action in ending the Iraq occupation or impeaching the correct people for crimes against the country. On Sunday, they adjourned for a month's vacation of their own. Before they left DC however they took the time to vote for a new Pentagon budget of $460 BILLION (not including additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan). Oh yes; there was also an American casualty to report from the nation’s capital. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution was struck a lethal blow by the departing Congress when they voted to make legal George Bush’s warrentless wiretapping program that had been previously ruled illegal by the courts.
Let’s hope these folks enjoy their much deserved vacation and that they will come back to work ready to take on those pesky tasks of governance.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
"BAGHDAD -- Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up…”
“…Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.
Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight -- so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well…”
“…Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.
Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.
Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial. The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations…”
I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.”
Sounds like a pretty optimistic view from someone in a key position. In fact the byline for the Op Ed read:
"By David H. Petraeus"
Yes, that’s right, General David Petraeus; current commander of American Forces in Iraq. The truly remarkable part of the story, however, is when it was published :
"Sunday, September 26, 2004
The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004."
In the almost 3 years since General Petraeus published that particular piece of propaganda, some 2500 additional Americans have died in Iraq. Untold thousands of Iraqis have been killed. Millions of US dollars that were intended for reconstruction purposes are unaccounted for. The electrical grid is all but decimated. Oh, and some 190,000 US supplied weapons are unaccounted for; with many considered to be in the control of the so-called insurgents.
Finally, take a look at the date of the Op-Ed: September 26, 2004. Next month; September, 2007, General Petraeus will be giving an update on “progress” in Iraq. It may be a pretty easy report to give. After all, he has given it before.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
In November of 2006 Americans finally said, “ENOUGH!” With more than 3,000 Americans killed in Iraq (along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis); ongoing terrorist attacks occurring in places like Spain, England, and the Philippines; and increasing reports of Bush Administration violations of their civil liberties, Americans voted Democrats into the majority in both the House and the Senate.
So what of the promises to end the occupation of Iraq and reassert the protection of the 4th Amendment for the American people? The number of Americans troops in Iraq has been INCREASED by some 30,000 since January; while the congress issues “non-binding resolutions denouncing the escalation.” When the Democrats finally produce legislation that would simply BEGIN to reduce troop levels over 18 months, they capitulated to a veto by George Bush and simply continued to fund the occupation with no more oversight than before. (AGAIN: A Bush veto, if simply left on his desk, would have effectively cut off funding for the continuing occupation; leaving the final decision firmly on Bush’s desk.)
As for protecting the civil liberties of American citizens, the record is thus far just as dismal. After numerous hearings we have learned that George Bush personally authorized illegal warrentless wiretapping of Americans and that the US Justice Department has been turned into a clearing house for the political wing of the Whitehouse. We have learned that under the blind overlook of Attorney General, Alberto (the torture guy) Gonzales, the FBI has violated the limited protections left in the Patriot Act on THOUSANDS of occasions. This weekend a Democratic led congress has voted not to limit the administration's abilities to violate our civil liberties and our Constitution but, rather, to enhance those abilities by making warrentless wiretapping of Americans LEGAL and by placing the oversight for those actions into the hands of POLITICAL APPOINTEES (Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General) and out of the hands of the JUDICIAL BRANCH! Why would the Democrats allow this to happen? Fear. No, not fear of any real threat to the country (after all not one person has ever been brought to trial and convicted of any terrorist activity based on information obtained via the Patriot Act or violations of the FISA ACT). In fact Democrats in congress were afraid that if they did not capitulate to Whitehouse and Republican demands to make these dictatorial revisions to the FISA ACT they might be prevented from taking their MONTH LONG summer vacation! That’s right. George Bush actually threatened to keep Congress in session until he got what he wanted. Well, thanks to 16 Democratic Senators:
Bayh – IN; Carper – DE; Casey –PA; Conrad – ND; Feinstein – CA; Inouye – HI; Klobuchar – MN; Landrieu – LA; Lincoln – AR; McCaskill – MO; Mikulski – MD; Nelson – FL; Nelson – NE; Pryor – AR; Salazar – CO; Webb – VA
And 41 Democratic members of the House:
Altmire – PA; Barrow – GA; Bean – IL; Boren – OK; Boswell – IA; Boyd – FL; Carney – PA; Chandler – KY; Cooper – TN; Costa – CA; Cramer – AL; Cuellar – TX; Davis – AL; Davis – TN; Donnelly – IN; Edwards – TX; Ellsworth – IN; Etheridge – NC; Gordon – TN; Herseth Sandlin – SD; Higgins – NY; Hill – IN; Lampson – TX; Lipinski – IL; Marshall – GA; Matheson – UT; McIntyre – NC; Melancon – LA; Mitchell – AZ; Peterson – MN; Pomeroy – ND; Rodriguez – TX; Ross – AR; Shuler – NC; Salazar – CO; Snyder – AR; Space – OH; Tanner – TN; Taylor – MS; Walz – MN; Wilson – OH
Congress and the Constitution will take a holiday.
By the way, just to add a divine ironic twist to this latest cluster f%^&* from our new Democratic Majority, in applying pressure to the Democrats, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the following:
"Al Qaeda is not going on vacation this month and we can't either until we know we've done our duty to the American people."
Senator, Al Qaeda is still not on vacation, our Troops are not on vacation, the Iraqi people are not on vacation but, as of 1am today, the United States Congress has joined the Iraqi Parliament for a month away from the grueling work of doing your “duty to the American people.”
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Pink - "Dear Mr. President"
Neil Young - "Let's Impeach the President">
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Filibuster threat sidelines Bush's pick for budget director
By Andrew Taylor
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:16 p.m. August 2, 2007
"WASHINGTON – President Bush's nominee to run the White House budget office, former GOP Rep. Jim Nussle, appears to be a long shot to win confirmation before the Senate's summer break.
The Senate Budget Committee approved his nomination by a 22-1 vote Thursday, but one committee member, Sen. Bernard Sanders, said he would hold up the nomination. Sanders' threat of a filibuster is enough to delay action until September at the earliest.
“President Bush is completely out of touch with the economic realities facing working families,” said Sanders, a Vermont independent. “He needs a budget director who will make him face the facts, not his fantasies.”"
Our friend Ozy provided this link to Sanders' questioning of Nussle during the Budget Committee hearing.
It is good to know that there are folks like Bernie out there who still care about working people and children.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
