Iraq War

Again some more loving from Bush for our vets:

A top White House official weighed in Thursday with renewed veto threats against rival House and Senate Iraq funding bills, saying add-ons for veterans and the unemployed were unacceptable.

Most significantly, Jim Nussle, director of the White House budget office, said that a plan by House Democrats to add unrelated legislation at a cost that could reach $51 billion over the next decade, would provoke a veto even though they are popular politically. The items he cited include extending unemployment benefits, at a cost of $16 billion over two years, and boosting education benefits under the GI Bill.

I would love to see Congress muster up enough votes to overturn the veto. Will the Republicans stand up for the veterans, or will they give them the proverbially "fuck you" that George Bush extends to them?

Yesterday John McCain told a townhall meeting this:

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

Luckily we also got video of this major admission from the Republican nominee.

So if we went to Iraq to "fight for oil", then was it worth it? The war is going to cost us about a trillion dollars and we have lost over 4,000 American soldiers in this war. Now let's look at the price of gas from before the war to today:

(Click for larger size. Via GasBuddy)

Sure it was worth it; if you're Shell, Exxon or Dick Cheney.

Yeah it was....

Because it might increase how long the war goes on. That's what the Bush administration is telling Congress. Isn't it sad that at a time when record numbers of Americans are losing their homes, our President is worried about aiding another country and not our own citizens? That should be considered a crime against the American people.

That's how a new report describes the Iraq War, and even goes as far as saying the "outcome is in doubt". This isn't a report by some left-wing group, but a report by National Defense University, the Pentagon's top educational institute.

The report was written by Joseph Collins, a former top Rumsfeld aide. He even lays a lot of the blame on his former boss:

Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney, bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."

" ... the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."

That right there should be indictment enough against Rumsfeld and Cheney. How many thousands of lives have been loss for their little experiment?

The report also says what Democrats have been saying all along - the war is emboldening our enemies:

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.

I suggest you give the article a full read. It shows that the administration is nothing more than war mongers, with no regard to the lives of our troops.

During Petraeus' testimony on the Hill, he constantly referred to the terrible state Iraq was in during 2006, and even went as far as referring to it as a "civil war". Last night Dan Abrams took us down memory lane to 2006 and showed how many times Bush, along with the rest of the administration, denounced it being a civil war and talked about how great things were in Iraq.

So now the question must be asked to both Petraeus and Bush; who is the liar? Someone clearly is. The American people, the troops and the Iraqi people deserve the truth in this war. The liar of what is happening needs to be exposed. For some reason I doubt that liar is the one in a military uniform.

If you ask any right winger they say it is. I admit violence has dropped in Iraq, but was that the purpose of the surge? No. The purpose was to give the government "breathing room" to come to political reconciliation. Well they were given this breathing room and it hasn't happened. That means that only one part of the surge was a success, but the overall surge was a failure.

Now we got Petraeus asking for more "patience". That would be patience at the cost of billions a week, while our economy is on the brink of collapse. I don't think the American people want to continue footing this bill, when the money can come in much more handy here.

Also Petraeus is asking Congress to reinstate funding to a program that provides Iraqi military leaders with training. I am curious to hear what McCain says on this. I got a feeling he will side with Petraeus and if he does then we must let everyone know he supports training for Iraqi soldiers, but not U.S. soldiers.

Of course what they are paying attention to is a poll that says McCain leads Obama and Clinton on the issue of Iraq by 14%. They also seem dumbfounded by the results. Really? I'm not.

Here's why McCain is doing good in that part of the poll. The fault lies in the same people who are wondering why - the media. McCain has made numerous gaffs on Iraq in the past few weeks, which would have proven fatal to any Democrat. Instead the media covers them up for John. They dismiss them as "senior moments" or just let's them go unchallenged. It's part of that love fest we have witnessed between McCain and the media, and it's disgusting.

Do you really think McCain would be doing this well on the question of Iraq if the media did their job and reported that McCain doesn't even know who the enemy really is?

Just because he fought in a war doesn't make him commander ready. If we followed that logic then we should expect a President Lynndie England in the future.

This story was buried on page A21 of the Washington Post yesterday:

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

The experts were reassembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace, which convened the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, a high-level panel that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq and offered recommendations in 2006. The new report predicts that lasting political development could take five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq, but also cautions that future progress may not be worth the "massive" human and financial costs to the United States.

So the last year has basically been a wash and we are still stuck in the never ending war, but the Washington Post thinks that's not newsworthy enough? Amazing. Just because the media doesn't want to cover the war anymore doesn't mean it still isn't going on. It doesn't mean soldiers aren't still dying. It's just not as juicy as Rev. Wright or Hillary's Bosnia trip.

3 soldiers killed and 31 wounded in Iraq. Two of the deaths occurred inside the Green Zone. I wonder how Petraeus will try to spin that this week.

Again - April Fool's:

The Iranian general who helped broker an end to nearly a week of fighting between Iraqi government forces and Shiite Muslim militiamen in southern Iraq is an unlikely peacemaker.

Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who helped U.S.-backed Iraqi leaders negotiate a deal with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to stop the fighting in Iraq's largely Shiite south, is named on U.S. Treasury Department and U.N. Security Council watch lists for alleged involvement in terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology.

His role as peacemaker, which McClatchy first reported Sunday, underscores Iran's entrenched political power and its alliances in Iraq, according to analysts.

All we hear about from this administration is how Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq and works against us. Now we see it was an Iranian general who put an end to last week's fighting. Just another case of believe the opposite of what your told from Bush.

Time for things to heat up even more in Iraq:

But a defiant al-Sadr called on his followers Saturday to ignore the order, saying that his Mahdi Army would turn in its weapons only to a government that can "get the occupier out of Iraq," referring to the Americans.

This fight is Shiite on Shiites. Things are going really bad in Iraq now, and we got the next Petraeus report coming up very soon. Things are going to get interesting in the spin rooms.

Bush yesterday:

President Bush, saying that "normalcy is returning back to Iraq," argued Thursday that last year's U.S. troop "surge" has improved Iraq's security to the point where political and economic progress are blossoming as well.

Yeah because Americans are so stupid and don't see the news, like:

• Shiite anger mounts in Iraq amid clashes
• Green zone hit for fourth day this week
• Black smoke near US embassy after Baghdad blast
• Baghdad security plan spokesman kidnapped--police
• Iraq: 2 guards to Iraq's vice president killed during Green Zone shelling
• Americans in Green Zone under siege
• U.S. Informs Diplomats: Take Cover in Baghdad

That's Bush's normalcy for you. All from the past 24 hours. Why don't he head on over there and take a stroll down the street and let us know how it goes?

The Green Zone has been hit yet again:

Shiite militants are hammering the U.S.-protected Green Zone with rockets and mortars for the fourth day this week.

Thick, black smoke is billowing from inside the heavily fortified home to the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government.

And Shiites are protesting in huge numbers:

Tens of thousands of Shiites took to Baghdad's streets to protest the government crackdown on militias in Basra as heavy fighting between Iraqi security forces and gunmen erupted for a third day in the southern oil port and the capital.

Iraqi officials reported 17 more people killed in overnight clashes in Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City and raised the number of deaths from fighting in the southern city of Hillah to at least 60.

So is this the progress we keep hearing about?

Of course the cable news networks is still relatively silent on this (except Olberman last night):

Iraq's prime minister on Wednesday gave gunmen in the southern oil port of Basra a three-day deadline to surrender their weapons and renounce violence as clashes between Shiite militia fighters and Iraqi security forces erupted for a second day.

At least 55 people have been killed and 300 wounded in Basra and Baghdad after the fighting spread to the capital's main Shiite district of Sadr City, police and hospital officials said.

The secure Green Zone also is under attack now:

Suspected Shiite extremists also unleashed rockets or mortars against the U.S.-protected Green Zone in central Baghdad for the third day this week.

Three Americans were seriously injured in the attacks on Wednesday, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said. At least four Iraqis also were killed after at least two mortar or rocket rounds fell short in Shiite areas of Baghdad.

A resumption of intense fighting by al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia could kill more U.S. soldiers and threaten - at least in the short run - the security gains Washington has hailed as a sign that Iraq is on the road to recovery.

Of course by Shiite extremists they mean Iran and al Qaeda. I guess the AP lost the John McCain memo.

Speaking of McCain he is supposed to give a "big speech" on Iraq today. I wonder if he will even mention the events over the last day, or if he even knows.