Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[hserse]

My proposal:

1. US must officially recognize failure in IRAQ

2. Removed US troops, base, installation (all Americans) out of IRAQ.

3. Refer to UN council to enlist the power of Arab nations (IRAN,SA,SYRIA,JORDAN,EyGPT,PAKISTAN, etc.)

4. The Arab nations must create a government based on the interests of Sunni, Shia, Kurds, etc.. UN must convinced the Arab nations its in their interest for their involvement to create a new IRAQ nation and not that of the US.

5. Beside the UN, US must help finance the reconstruction via the UN. US MUST NOT BE INVOLVED in political decision or how the government would be created.

6. The involvement US should only be that of humanitarian aid, and financial aid in the suffering for what it had started.

ANALOGY: ***If we invade/messed up someone's home, we shouldn't be there and try to enforce rules/regulation/directives as to what they should do with their home. We should leave, and offer comfort/compensations and hoping they would recover. The more we try, the worst it will get..***


This the one route, but its unfortunate it wouldn't come true, because we are living in the "dark reality of human nature." In addition, for the reasons which our "dignified and honorable government" led us to believe the terrorists would win if we accept the above conditions.

The question is relative, but "In the eyes of the IRAQI's dead and the lifeless, who are the terrorists?"

The other route: PRAY for minimal bloodshed ...

"Nature tends to balance itself. If we brought about the imbalance we must be able to rebalance. If we unable to restore the natural balance, by GOD's wrath shall it be balance again" unknown

 

[turbo]

My proposal:

1. US must officially recognize failure in IRAQ

2. Removed US troops, base, installation (all Americans) out of IRAQ.

3. Refer to UN council to enlist the power of Arab nations (IRAN,SA,SYRIA,JORDAN,EyGPT,PAKISTAN, etc.)

4. The Arab nations must create a government based on the interests of Sunni, Shia, Kurds, etc.. UN must convinced the Arab nations its in their interest for their involvement to create a new IRAQ nation and not that of the US.

5. Beside the UN, US must help finance the reconstruction via the UN. US MUST NOT BE INVOLVED in political decision or how the government would be created.

6. The involvement US should only be that of humanitarian aid, and financial aid in the suffering for what it had started.

ANALOGY: ***If we invade/messed up someone's home, we shouldn't be there and try to enforce rules/regulation/directives as to what they should do with their home. We should leave, and offer comfort/compensations and hoping they would recover. The more we try, the worst it will get..***


This the one route, but its unfortunate it wouldn't come true, because we are living in the "dark reality of human nature." In addition, for the reasons which our "dignified and honorable government" led us to believe the terrorists would win if we accept the above conditions.

The question is relative, but "In the eyes of the IRAQI's dead and the lifeless, who are the terrorists?"

The other route: PRAY for minimal bloodshed ...

"Nature tends to balance itself. If we brought about the imbalance we must be able to rebalance. If we unable to restore the natural balance, by GOD's wrath shall it be balance again" unknown

Your scenario is wonderful, but it will never happen. Even if progress occurs in one direction or another, the people profiting from this war will lean on Cheney and Bush to stop it. The neocons (with Rove in the driver's seat) are already priming people in the US to expect years of direct occupation, leaving W a clear exit so that whoever wins the next election is going to be responsible for cleaning up the mess that he (and his Edgar Bergen VP) has created. These creeps are war criminals and they have ruined a country for profit and killed and wounded hundreds of thousand of people (including our soldiers) in the effort. Flag-waving and yellow ribbons cannot cover their criminality, if you have two brain cells to rub together.

 

[Astronuc]

Expand the theme to "What to do about the war on terrorism".

I would recommend reading the book. The next time one decides to support a war, think about the consequences.

A Former Navy SEAL Questions Rules of War
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12690379

Morning Edition, August 13, 2007 · In June 2005, Marcus Luttrell and three of his fellow Navy SEALs set off on a mission in the mountains of Afghanistan. They were ambushed by the Taliban, leaving him as the only survivor among the American special operations team.

Luttrell, who has since retired from the military, recounts the ordeal in a memoir, Lone Survivor, co-written by Patrick Robinson.

The book has received much attention this summer, in part because of the decisions the SEALs made. They're the kind of decisions that lie at the heart of the war on terrorism: Who do you target — and who you do kill — when the enemy doesn't wear a uniform?

"War's not black and white," Luttrell tells Steve Inskeep. "You can sit there and put it on paper, like, 'This is what has to be done in this certain situation.' But when you get up there on that mountain, or when you're in a battlefield, it doesn't work that way. And sometimes stuff has to be done so you can preserve the life of your men."

Luttrell faced at least two decisions with lives at stake, including his own. The first decision came after the SEALs moved into the Afghan mountains. That's when they were discovered by Afghans who might betray their presence.

. . . .

 

[turbo]

Cheney (in 1994) knew exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq, and pushed for it anyway, so he and W could enrich their buddies.

 

[Futobingoro]

Just out of curiosity, why do people repeat themselves so much on here?

I bet if I made a tally sheet, each of the following items would have dozens of marks, many from the same person on the same subject:

-Bush is (negative adjective or negative noun)
-Bush lied
-The War is for oil/Halliburton
-Civil rights and the Constitution are being trampled on
...and many others

I'm sure this was something new and different 5 years ago, but now that a new person (or the same person) is reiterating these opinions several times a week, it has gotten very stale. And please don't indulge yourselves in an "it's because we're all right" scenario. Try to look at this objectively.

 

[edward]

The September Petraeus report

An article in the L.A. Times was sounding as if we might finally get some unbiased information on Iraq. The headline was. "TOP GENERAL MAY PROPOSE PULLBACKS"

It sounded great until this paragraph near the end.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,1634199,full.story?coll=la-home-center

 

[turbo]

Just out of curiosity, why do people repeat themselves so much on here?

Would you like to address this?

 

[Astronuc]

And some good news for a change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070814/us_nm/iraq_baby_dc;_ylt=AqMJop3RutdAhFhiO5djZ1ys0NUE

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - In the nine months since she was born, tiny Fatima Jubouri first lost her father, then gunmen killed her mother and uncle and she was left alone and uncared for in a pile of garbage in Baghdad.

Police found Fatima, malnourished and suffering from dehydration in Iraq's scorching summer heat, hidden under rubbish in one of southern Baghdad's most violent districts.

How she got there is not clear, although there is speculation her mother hid her before she was killed.

An innocent rescued from Iraq's killing fields, her survival against the odds has made Fatima a media star at a U.S. military hospital in Baghdad's Green Zone.

"She is a baby -- she is happiness in a bad place," said Lieutenant Beth Brauchli, the hospital's acting public affairs officer.

Between Fatima's naps, staff at the 28th Combat Support Hospital have been scheduling appointments for U.S. and other foreign television crews to visit their tiny charge in the hope that her story will rescue her from an uncertain future.

Children are particularly vulnerable in Iraq's sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands of people and made millions homeless. A report by British charity Oxfam also said at least 28 percent of Iraqi children were malnourished.

For now, Fatima is the centre of attention, doted on by nurses and other visitors to her ward. But soon, and no one at the hospital knows exactly when, U.S. soldiers will return to take her to an orphanage to join her five siblings.

 

[BobG]

Would you like to address this?

Better than addressing this one.

How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?

The chalkboard, "55 days til Daddy comes home", hurts. Life seems like a cruel joke sometimes.

The interview is touched up for effect and the end result is more devastating than the Swift Boat Ads. That's going to be a tough one for the White House to handle.

 

[Astronuc]

As of Thursday, Aug 16, 2007 -

3703 Americans soldiers have died in Iraq.


And remind, what do we get of this again?

And what do their families get out of this?

And what about the 10's of thousands of injured?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

And what do the Iraqis get out this?

 

[edward]

As of Thursday, Aug 16, 2007 -

3703 Americans soldiers have died in Iraq.


And remind, what do we get of this again?

And what do their families get out of this?

And what about the 10's of thousands of injured?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

And what do the Iraqis get out this?

What do the families get out of this? is the one that really bothers me. Well actually they all do of course, but that one has a twist to it. The Military has made low cost $250,000 life insurance policies available to all combat soldiers in Iraq. The twist is that the soldier gets a bonus to sign up, the survivors get a bonus if the soldier is killed.

The problem that I have with this is that it is almost like hush money. Even after the loss of a loved one, how many people would protest against the system that made that much money available to them?

It is also as if the money is some kind of confirmation that their loved one did not die in vain. IMHO the psychology involved here is why the big bucks policies were implemented. The Pentagon didn't want any more Cindy Sheehan's.

 

[Mallignamius]

I doubt even a million dollars will mute most families missing their child, parent, or spouse to this war.

 

[edward]

I doubt even a million dollars will mute most families missing their child, parent, or spouse to this war.

I think you fail to see the psychological factor here. People who accepted the money and then protested against the war would fear being labeled as hypocrites. And yet the survivor who protests is the one more likely to gain attention.

Cindy Sheehan was certainly beaten over the head by conservative groups because she accepted her sons death benefits and then protested against the war. Admittedly she ended up acting a bit daffy, but she had experienced the loss of her son and had been followed constantly for two years.

Sorry I am getting off topic here, but I think the only place I erred was on the dollar amount. It is a maximum $400,000 subsidised insurance policy plus a direct payment by the government of $100,000 plus funeral costs.

These amounts were much smaller prior to 2005 when the congress authorized a boost from a $12.500 government payment and a maximum insurance policy 0f $80.000. The payouts were also made retroactive to 2001.

I cannot accept any other exlpanation than that the $500,000 payouts quiclkly approved in 2005 were anything other than a form of hush money.

http://www.political-news.org/breaking/12872/us-boosts-death-pay-for-troops-killed-in-action.html

 

[BobG]

I think you fail to see the psychological factor here. People who accepted the money and then protested against the war would fear being labeled as hypocrites. And yet the survivor who protests is the one more likely to gain attention.

Cindy Sheehan was certainly beaten over the head by conservative groups because she accepted her sons death benefits and then protested against the war. Admittedly she ended up acting a bit daffy, but she had experienced the loss of her son and had been followed constantly for two years.

That makes no sense. It's an employer subsidized life insurance policy, just like the ones many civilian companies offer.

If you want to look at it that way, then civilian families get a bonus when their family member is killed on the job, too. In fact, the family member doesn't even necessarily have to be killed on the job. My family gets a bonus if I'm killed by a drunk driver or run over by a bus.

The logic that the insurance money is hush money is a bit of a stretch.

 

[chemisttree]

An article in the L.A. Times was sounding as if we might finally get some unbiased information on Iraq. The headline was. "TOP GENERAL MAY PROPOSE PULLBACKS"

It sounded great until this paragraph near the end.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,1634199,full.story?coll=la-home-center

I believe this is exactly what the congress required of the president.

 

[edward]

That makes no sense. It's an employer subsidized life insurance policy, just like the ones many civilian companies offer.

If you want to look at it that way, then civilian families get a bonus when their family member is killed on the job, too. In fact, the family member doesn't even necessarily have to be killed on the job. My family gets a bonus if I'm killed by a drunk driver or run over by a bus.

This isn't the average job BoB. As far as comparing it to the civilian sector employment, I have seen large sums of money offered to survivors as hush money there too. And it was done with the specific stipulation that the recipient not talk about the settlement.

For that matter most civilian employers are more than likely to have an insurance policy on an employee whose survivors will only see a small portion of the proceeds from the policy. Remember Walmart, and the dead janitor policies which paid the family nothing.? They are still around iun a slightly different version.

The logic that the insurance money is hush money is a bit of a stretch.

It isn't hush money under the general concept of the phrase used in a civilian context. A parent who has just lost a son and received $500,000 in return is going to go through a lot of grief and guilt at the same time.

And yes people do feel guilt about receiving that much money in these cases.
Again it is this psychological aspect that no one seems to be able to comprehend.

Although some anger is always in the picture, think how different it would be if the parent had lost the son and received nothing. It would result in grief and great anger.

It is the amount of money involved that is the key here. $400,000 policies and a cash benefit of $100,000 for the military was unheard of just a few years ago. That's a lot of money to families of meager means. And as I stated before it is a major leap from the previous $ 80,000 and $12,500.

The government's highly subsidized policies and drastically increased cash death benefit didn't come about suddenly because Rove wanted to be a nice guy. This was a political decision.

 

[Astronuc]

The headlines are not very enouraging, even with Bush, Cheney, McCain et al declaring success.

Is Iraq Fit for "Freedom"?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655111,00.html

The distance between Washington rhetoric and the reality of the Iraq war has always been vast. But even by that standard, President Bush's latest remarks are notable for their detachment from the facts on the ground.

For one thing, President Bush's speech to a Veterans of Foreign Wars group in Kansas City compared present-day Iraq to postwar Japan, arguing, "Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom."

But the conflict in which the U.S. is embroiled in Iraq has little to do with fitness for freedom. The President, for example, touts U.S. successes in "helping to bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against al-Qaeda." This is indeed a laudable achievement by the U.S. military, but it has little to do with freedom or even with strengthening the Iraqi government. Turning Sunni insurgents against al-Qaeda may hasten the demise of the jihadist wing of the insurgency, but it will not end the violence in Iraq. Those same insurgents now fighting al-Qaeda remain implacably opposed to the democratically elected government in Baghdad.

Indeed, the men Bush now casts as freedom-loving allies in the battle against al-Qaeda are the very same insurgents dismissed by the Administration for years as thuggish dead-enders committed to reconstituting Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. They have turned to the U.S. military for help as they face annihilation at the hands of both Sunni jihadists and Shi'ite militiamen. Watching American soldiers patrol Sunni neighborhoods alongside masked ex-insurgent gunmen is a testament to the power of political chaos and brutal violence to create strange bedfellows. But such alliances are invariably temporary — U.S. commanders are well aware that these same insurgents may again turn their guns on the Iraqi government — and they hardly symbolize progress in a march towards freedom and democracy.

The leaders of some of these groups President Bush now counts as converts to the cause of freedom make no bones about their agenda. A former insurgent leader in west Baghdad said he believes he will have to fight the Iraqi government once he's through with al-Qaeda, because the Shi'ite-led government, in his view, is simply a militia-backed proxy of Iran.

. . . .

After Maliki, Few Good Alternatives
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655171,00.html

With Nuri al-Maliki's government teetering on the verge of collapse, Baghdad's Green Zone is humming with political maneuverings by Iraqi politicians who want his job. Given the dominance of the Shi'ite coalition in Iraq's legislature, the likelihood remains that the next prime minister — like Maliki and his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari — will come from within its ranks. And that fact alone means there's little likelihood of a major change in Iraqi government policies — bad news for the Bush administration. Here's a look at the frontrunners and the wild cards:

The Usual Suspects

The Shi'ite coalition's most likely candidate is Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a French-trained economist and political chameleon. Having been, at various points in his career, a communist, a Ba'athist and a secular liberal democrat, he has switched directions so many times it's hard to know which way he's going. These days, Abdul-Mahdi represents the Shi'ite-fundamentalist Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), which, like Maliki's Dawa Party, is beholden to Tehran. Twice in the past two years, Abdul-Mahdi has told journalists he was on the verge of quitting the SIIC to form his own party, only to change his mind — likely because he knows he has no grassroots support or street cred of his own. As prime minister, he would be little more than a puppet in the hand of Iran's ayatollahs, and would be unlikely to do more than Maliki has done to accommodate the Sunnis.

Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, appointed by the U.S. but voted out in the first democratic election, is offering himself as a secular alternative to Maliki, but his own track record is not exactly inspiring either. During his brief tenure, he showed little capacity for administration and no political vision beyond his own survival. His government was riddled with corruption and ineptitude, and it was during Allawi's reign that militias began to infiltrate Iraqi security forces. He failed even to rally like-minded secular parties, and has spent little time in Iraq since losing the last election, rarely attending parliament. In recent weeks, he has tried to cobble together a new alliance with Sunnis, but has met strong opposition from Kurdish parties.

The Wild Cards

. . . .

Reality has never been an impediment to Bush and Cheney. With them, failure was never an option - it was guaranteed.

 

[barbiv]

Americans need to wake up and unite--in race, gender, ethnicity. We have an intense sense of entitlement to individual freedom!

Why are so many intellectuals trying to make sense of this Administration and war and the "corn-fed intelligsia" supporting this---while none of them are gaining a thing from this? What do we need to do? The same thing that was done 200 years ago---fight for rights, freedom, independence and quit being scared=== fear is only an liilusion to control the masses. We have been forced to divide--it's time to unite. That's the only way to regain our rights.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Government Gets Poor Grade from GAO
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14159938

NPR.org, September 4, 2007 · The Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of its 18 benchmark goals for political progress and security, according to a new report issued Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office.

"Overall key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," said U.S. Comptroller David Walker in prepared remarks for a Senate hearing on Tuesday.

GAO's findings paint a bleaker view of progress in Iraq than offered by Bush in July and comes at a critical time in the Iraq debate. So far, Republicans have stuck by Bush and staved off Democratic legislation ordering troops home. But many, who have grown uneasy about the unpopularity of the war, say they want to see substantial improvement in Iraq by September.

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-1220T

This testimony is intended to discuss our report on whether or not the government of Iraq has met 18 benchmarks contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 20072 (the Act). The Act requires GAO to report on the status of the achievement of these benchmarks. Consistent with GAO's core values and our desire to be fair and balanced, we also considered and used a "partially met" rating for some benchmarks. In comparison, the Act requires the administration to report on whether satisfactory progress is being made toward meeting the benchmarks. The benchmarks cover Iraqi government actions needed to advance reconciliation within Iraqi society, improve the security of the Iraqi population, provide essential services to the population, and promote economic well-being. To complete this work, we reviewed U.S. agency and Iraqi documents and interviewed officials from the Departments of Defense, State, and the Treasury; the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) and its subordinate commands; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the Central Intelligence Agency; the National Intelligence Council; and the United Nations. These officials included Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and General David H. Petraeus, Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. We made multiple visits to Iraq during 2006 and 2007, most recently from July 22 to August 1, 2007. Our analyses were enhanced by approximately 100 Iraq-related reports and testimonies that we have completed since May 2003. We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The benchmarks were derived from commitments first articulated by the Iraqi government in June 2006. The Iraqi government met 3, partially met 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds. These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces and progress that has been made in several areas, including Anbar Province. The Iraqi government met one of eight legislative benchmarks: the rights of minority political parties in Iraq's legislature are protected. The government has not enacted legislation on de-Ba'athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament. It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased--a key security benchmark--since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators' intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends. As the Congress considers the way forward in Iraq, it should balance the achievement of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks with military progress and with homeland security goals, foreign policy goals, and other goals of the United States.

And in the past few days come revelations that the Iraqi military cannot function independently for at least another year. Meanwhile the US is supposed to step back and reduce its footprint in Iraq.

Jones Report Calls for Reducing U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14218104

All Things Considered, September 6, 2007 · An independent commission created by Congress is strongly recommending both downsizing U.S. forces in Iraq and changing their mission. The 20-member commission was headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones.

. . .

"The commission's overall assessment of the ISF is that there has been measurable, though uneven, progress," he said.

The shining star in this report card was the 152,000-member Iraqi army. Jones said the force is still plagued by logistical problems and the commission judged it not yet up to protecting Iraq's borders. But the army's ability to deal with internal threats has improved. The report recommends that U.S. forces shift from internal security to protecting Iraq's borders and infrastructure.

The report is much more critical of the country's national police force. It says the Shiite-controlled force should be disbanded immediately.

"I have never in 38 years of policing experienced a situation where there was so much negativity around any particular police force," commission member and former Washington, D.C. police chief Charles Ramsey told the committee.

"It was unbelievable, the amount of negative comments we got, whether we were speaking with Iraqi army, with Iraqi Police Service. It didn't seem to matter with community members. There was almost a universal feeling that the national police were highly sectarian, were corrupt, had been accused of having death squads and the like," Ramsey continued.

And while Gen. Jones noted that there have been what he called "tactical successes" with the U.S. troop surge, he said that Iraq remains torn by sectarian strife.

The persistent sectarian conflict does not bode well for the future.

 

[ophase]

What should we do about Iraq?

Just admit honestly that when Winston Churchill drew the borders of Iraq by his hands in 1926, he was wrong. There is no country called Iraq. Tell me anything that can keep Iraq people together in piece??
In my opinion Iraq will be parted to several territories at last and if the governments of these territories behaves foolish they will be punished by neighbouring countries like Iran, Turkey,Syria...etc.
The problem is, there is not any ethnic authorities from the Kurd, shii or sunni sides which can take in hand the responsibility of being a government in his territory. So that means a civil war in Iraq.
I hope the civil war can be solved on a platform like United Nations by listening to all sides of war.

 

[edward]

Ironic but in the process of trying to give Iraq democracy, "American soldiers have been present during the biggest ethnic cleansing since the Balkans."

I saw the comment in quotes on the PBS NOW program, but I can't seem to find a direct link to it.

The man who made the quote went on to say that if we pulled out not much would change in Baghdad. The worst has already happened. The city no longer has mixed Sunni
Shiite neighborhoods they are already ethnically divided into defined areas.

 

[Ian]

If you apply American Law to the Iraqi tragedy you have a clear cut case of "corporate manslaughter" either through sheer incompetence or willful harm.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush advisers favor current war strategy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5750513

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top two military and political advisers on Iraq will warn Congress on Monday that making any significant changes to the current war strategy will jeopardize the limited security and political progress made so far, The Associated Press has learned.

.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who has been less forthcoming than Gen. David Petraeus in advance of his testimony, will join Petraeus in pushing for maintaining the U.S. troop surge, seeing it as the only viable option to prevent Iraq and the region from plunging into further chaos, U.S. officials said.

Crocker and Petraeus planned to meet on Sunday to go over their remarks and responses to expected tough questioning from lawmakers — including skeptical Republicans. But they will not consult Bush or their immediate bosses before their appearances Monday and Tuesday, in order to preserve the "independence and the integrity of their testimony," said one official.

Petraeus and Crocker did have lengthy discussions with the president, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when Bush visited Iraq on Labor Day.

Crocker, a career diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East who opposed the war when it began in 2003, is pushing for political change where progress has been elusive and the administration's options are limited under the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Yet the diplomat will say that as poorly as al-Maliki's government has performed, it would not be advisable at the moment for the U.S. to support new leadership or lobby for a different coalition of Iraq's fractious Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the officials said.

. . . .

Status quo - seemingly treading water, hoping not to drown.

Meanwhile -

Nation Awaits General's Iraq Report
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14272695

Weekend Edition Sunday, September 9, 2007 · Gen. Petraeus prepares to deliver his highly anticipated report to Congress in an important test for the popular commander and for the future of the Bush administration's military policy in Iraq.

The Petraeus Report
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14253302

 

[edward]

The Tide Has Turned In Iraq. Or has It?

President Bush informed the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia that: "We are kicking ass in Iraq."

Despite much evidence to the contrary Senator Lindsay Graham has also used the phrase.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/07/graham-weeks/

 

[Astronuc]

The House session for the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker has begun. I was listening to Ike Skelton's synopsis, and he is spot on. Then Tom Lantos just spoke. He is also spot on.

Why weren't such discussions held 4 years ago? I think because the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress suppressed dissent.

Hopefully Petraeus and Crocker will be successful where others were not. The odds however seem to be against them, nevertheless, given the current situation, I have to support them.

Petraeus and Crocker to Open Testimony on Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14288514

The Petraeus Report
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14253302

Impact of 'Surge' Debated in Baghdad
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285942

This is very profound and sad!

Young Dentist Describes Life in War-Torn Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285985
by Hassan Khalidy

Morning Edition, September 10, 2007 · A 24-year-old dentist who lives in Baghdad reflects on being displaced from his wealthy neighborhood and how the security situation has affected his life.

 

[Astronuc]

Michael Totten's Journal

Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html

A perspective from someone there on the ground. No endorsement expressed or implied. A conservative friend sent this to me.

 

[Astronuc]

2 G.I.’s, Skeptical but Loyal, Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13troops.html

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — “Engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act,” the seven soldiers wrote of the war they had seen in Iraq.

They were referring to the ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about their lives with death and suffering all around them. But sadly, although they did not know it at the time, they might almost have been referring to themselves.

Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck in which they were riding overturned.

The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of “The War as We Saw It,” in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.

“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,” the soldiers wrote.

RIP gentlemen. You are missed at home.

 

[Astronuc]

September 17, 2007
Sectarian Toll Includes Scars to Iraq Psyche
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Sept. 16 — Violence swept over the Muhammad family in December, taking the father, the family’s house and all of its belongings in one chilly morning. But after the Muhammads fled, it subsided and life re-emerged — ordinary and quiet — in its wake.

Now they no longer have to hide their Shiite last name. The eldest daughter does not have to put on an Islamic head scarf. Grocery shopping is not a death-defying act.

Although the painful act of leaving is behind them, their minds keep returning to the past, trying to process a violation that was as brutal as it was personal: young men from the neighborhood shot the children’s father as they watched. Later, the men took the house.

“I lost everything in one moment,” said Rossel, the eldest daughter. “I don’t know who I am now. I’m somebody different.”

They are educated people, and they say they do not want revenge. But typical of those who are left from Iraq’s reasonable middle, the Muhammads have been hardened toward others by violence, and they have been forced to feel their sectarian identity, a mental closing that allows war made by militants to spread.

“In the past the country lived all together, but now, no,” Rossel said. “I don’t trust anyone.”

Iraqis have continued to flee their homes throughout the American troop increase, which began early this year, and despite assurances that it is becoming safe to return, uncrossable lines have been left in Iraqi minds and neighborhoods. Schools, hospitals and municipal buildings are quickly losing their diversity, and even moderate Iraqis like the Muhammads say they cannot imagine ever going back.

In northeastern Baghdad, Hashem, a polite 14-year-old from a different Shiite family, has an acute sense of sect. (For his safety, his last name is not being used.) The players in his soccer club are Shiite. His school is three-quarters Shiite. His five or six close friends are all Shiites. He refrains from telling a joke he likes about a Sunni politician because it might hurt the feelings of the Sunni boys.

Though the alignment is religious, in practice it is more like being on the same sports team: Hashem, like his father, is not at all devout.

“In the beginning it was a shame to say Sunni or Shiite,” he said, sitting on a couch in a guest room in a heavily Shiite neighborhood in northern Baghdad, “but we know.”

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world/middleeast/17baghdad.html

It's not working.

 

[edward]

Iraq's Interior Ministry has apparently revoked the license of Blackwater Security after a recent incident.

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's Interior Ministry canceled the license of controversial American security firm Blackwater USA today after Iraqi officials charged that eight civilians were shot by company bodyguards accompanying a U.S. State Department motorcade the day before in Baghdad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...sep18,1,3358790.story?coll=la-headlines-world

According to an article in my local paper these guys at times even guard Petraeus.

 

[edward]

According to the last 60 seconds of this video. Blackwater was deployed in New Orleans after Katrina. I am a bit concerned about that.

 

[kach22i]

According to the last 60 seconds of this video. Blackwater was deployed in New Orleans after Katrina. I am a bit concerned about that.

I've known about these guys for a long time, the video pieces it all together nicely.

The New Orleans video I've seen before was quite shocking. The Blackwater guys were in a convoy when they received gun fire (shots heard) from an overpass. They returned fire until nothing was moving (their words in the video).

Dead looters or people protecting their homes from the armed gunmen (many are/were foreigners - Isreali, Eastern European etc..) of Blackwater?

The dead tell no tales.

 

[baywax]

What to do about Iraq?

Apologize, clean up the mess, pay for damages and back out very carefully.
Then prepare for any repercussions.

 

[turbo]

What to do about Iraq?

Apologize, clean up the mess, pay for damages and back out very carefully.
Then prepare for any repercussions.

If we had an ethical adult in the White House, maybe we could hope for that. We need a president who is smart enough to realize that we need a regional coalition in the ME to help support and stabilize Iraq as we finance reconstruction for the damage the radical neocons have done there. Unfortunately, it's going to get worse (maybe much worse) before it gets better in the ME. The US military will be conducting a massive air-war against Iran within the next few weeks. The neocons and the defense contractors have been pushing for it, the administration has been publicly rattling the saber, and French officials have joined the chorus. The Israelis have been wanting this for a long time, and they expect the US military to be their proxy. The decision has already been made at the highest levels, and there only needs to be a "triggering event" to touch off a full-scale attack, whether the provocation is real or manufactured. I would love to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid that our country's "leaders" are going to continue to choose aggression and murder over cooperation.

 

[Art]

If we had an ethical adult in the White House, maybe we could hope for that. We need a president who is smart enough to realize that we need a regional coalition in the ME to help support and stabilize Iraq as we finance reconstruction for the damage the radical neocons have done there. Unfortunately, it's going to get worse (maybe much worse) before it gets better in the ME. The US military will be conducting a massive air-war against Iran within the next few weeks. The neocons and the defense contractors have been pushing for it, the administration has been publicly rattling the saber, and French officials have joined the chorus. The Israelis have been wanting this for a long time, and they expect the US military to be their proxy. The decision has already been made at the highest levels, and there only needs to be a "triggering event" to touch off a full-scale attack, whether the provocation is real or manufactured. I would love to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid that our country's "leaders" are going to continue to choose aggression and murder over cooperation.

It gets worse. According to a report by the BBC Syria also is being set up for an attack. It seems those same 'senior officials' in Washington who set the seeds for war in Iraq are hard at it again. This time the story is that Syria are trying to develop nukes with help from N Korea.

N Korea denies Syria nuclear ties
North Korea has denied allegations that it may be helping Syria develop a nuclear weapons facility.

The foreign ministry in Pyongyang called the claims an "unskilful conspiracy" and "groundless".

There were allegations last week that Syria was holding technology or materials relating to North Korea's nuclear programme.

This follows reports that Israeli jets entered Syrian air space earlier this month and hit an unknown target.

"Recently some US media including the New York Times have been spreading allegations that we are secretly helping Syria with its nuclear programme. Such reports are groundless and misleading," a ministry spokesman said.
snip
There has been speculation over what the likely targets of the Israeli raid may have been.

One, cited by the New York Times newspaper quoting a US source, suggests that the attack was in some way linked to North Korea.

The former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, raised the possibility that Syria was sheltering technology or materials relating to North Korea's nuclear programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7000171.stm
Also

Political agenda'

All sorts of questions remain. Experts on North Korea's nuclear programme are highly sceptical about the alleged technology transfer.

Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Washington-based Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank, has gone so far as to describe the story as "nonsense".

Selective leaks are being used to play up the Syria-North Korea connection, he writes on the online site of the journal Foreign Policy.

"This appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted 'intelligence' to key reporters in order to promote a pre-existing political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war with Iraq, then it should," he writes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7000717.stm

Meanwhile Israel not content with it's intrusions into Syria seems keen to rekindle fighting in Lebanon

BBC NEWS
'Israeli warplanes raid' Lebanon
Israeli warplanes have flown at low altitude over southern Lebanon in defiance of a United Nations resolution, reports from Beirut say.

The fighter jets allegedly caused sonic booms as they flew over the cities of Sidon and Tyre, as well as the towns of Bint Jbeil and Marjayoun.

Israel has so far made no comment on the Lebanese claims.

Israel has been criticised by the UN for making a number of overflights in Lebanon in recent weeks.

Israel says they are necessary to monitor activities by the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7001006.stm
I'll be interested to see what punishment the US gov't demands for Israel flouting last August's UN resolution.

 

[baywax]

If we had an ethical adult in the White House, maybe we could hope for that. We need a president who is smart enough to realize that we need a regional coalition in the ME to help support and stabilize Iraq as we finance reconstruction for the damage the radical neocons have done there. Unfortunately, it's going to get worse (maybe much worse) before it gets better in the ME. The US military will be conducting a massive air-war against Iran within the next few weeks. The neocons and the defense contractors have been pushing for it, the administration has been publicly rattling the saber, and French officials have joined the chorus. The Israelis have been wanting this for a long time, and they expect the US military to be their proxy. The decision has already been made at the highest levels, and there only needs to be a "triggering event" to touch off a full-scale attack, whether the provocation is real or manufactured. I would love to be wrong about this, but I'm afraid that our country's "leaders" are going to continue to choose aggression and murder over cooperation.

OK... with that in mind... are you ready to move to Nanuvet and live in a seal skin hut or an even more luxurious igloo? Just have to watch for Russian subs surfacing and starving polar bears.