What will Patraeus say about Iraq?

General Patraeus testifies to Congress tomorrow, giving an update on Iraq, the "Surge" and the latest string of violence. The yahoo article from Nancy Youssef (McClatchy's chief Pentagon correspondent)here outlines these pitfalls, just in the past few weeks:

Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched in the southern port city of Basra and in Baghdad two weeks ago. Instead of ridding the city of rogue Shiite Muslim militias, the operation exposed the frailty of the U.S.-trained Iraqi military, emboldened rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr and his fighters and showcased Iran's powerful influence on Iraq's security and politics.

Click on the title link to order a transcript .pdf from NHPR tomorrow.

Code Pink For Peace, Arresting Protesters, Marcy Kaptur, AEGIS, and Defense Department Oversight

Ok, so these next snippets and articles are somewhat related, inter-related, and too vast for me to explain all of it. As some of you may know there were hearings all day by the oversight committe on Private Contractors. Of the parties who gave testimony were Blackwater CEO Erik Prince and members of the State Department. During this session, I was astounded at some of the numbers I heard and the testimony of our state department, let alone the lack of oversight on Blackwater and other private security forces currently in Iraq. Here are just a few of the snippets, please contact C-Span for full transcripts.

* Blackwater has conducted 3,073 Missions on Behalf of the State Department (The American People do not hear about these because they are private contractors, we even outsource our military operations)

* A State Department Official testified that American Troops and Diplomats are attacked on average 6,000 times per month.

* The State Department testified today that the issue of jurisdiction "is now" being examined. {our military and private security forces are immune from Iraqi law- CPA Order 17, they are now examining how to provide oversight}

* Blackwater was given the no-bid contract on the basis of urgency and compelling circumstances. Four other companies were considered, no one asked who they were.

* In 2001 Blackwater had less than 1 million in private security contracts with the State Dept. Now they have over 1 Billion.

* There are 160,000 private independent contractors in Iraq.

* Security Officers from private companies are hired @ 2-3 times that of primary American commanders in Iraq

Quotes from Henry Waxman (Oversight Committee Chair)

To State Department:

"We've had better response from Blackwater than we have from the State Department"
"You provide oversight to Blackwater and we provide oversight to you"
"You owe us more answers and we are going to continue to try and get them."

Then later I was watching this video about peaceful protester being arrested outside of a "pro-war rally". The organization involved in the protest was code pink and two mentionables at the pro war rally were Joe Lieberman and John McCain.




So I looked up code pink to see what they were all about and I came across this video of Code Pink members talking with Toledo's own Marcy Kaptur. She has a frank discussion about the occupation of Iraq, the story that is being kept from the American people, and the name drop of a private contractor from England AEGIS. If she tells Code Pink to investigate AEGIS, then dammit I am going to look into it as well. I did not have to look real hard to find out that this private contractor was given a 2 year contract worth 475 million.




The occupation of Iraq is costing billions of dollars and most everyone in the know knows that we are not paying for it now. People in my generation and younger will be bearing the burden of this occupation long after these people are out of office or in retirement. We do not see any of these statistics on attacks, crimes, and spending because it is outsourced to private companies. The American people are paying for these contracts and people are letting it continue.

Bill Richardson--The Only Democrat who wants out of Iraq

Here is a video of Bill Richardson and his position on getting the troops out of Iraq. I am posting it for two reasons, one I like underdogs (I have a few Ron Paul videos up here), and two I think it demonstrates how deep this Middle East foreign policy really goes. I do not see Hillary as anything different, from a global economy or military perspective, than what we currently have in office. Her husband is a member of the Trilateral Commission just like George W. and his father. People that plan together, hold power together in my opinion.

We'll just wait and see how this all pans out.

Garofolo, Rob THomas, Rushdie, and Bill Maher

Here is a great video of the current state of the Iraq War, The failure of our local media outlets and news media in general, civilian American contractors in Iraq, and the Blackwater debacle.

Not for conservative eyes unless your ready to confront the lies.

Bush setting up to invade Iran, Cheney wants war, Condi wants diplomacy.

This is a great article from the telegraph.uk from Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman. It outlines CIA intelligence that is looking like a set up for a War with Iran. Condoleezza Rice sufficient capital hill support for military efforts and Cheney justs think we should invade them now. Here are two great passages from the article:

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board." LOL, Who was the source? A soap opera writer? Cheney is the ringmaster theorists win this round.

"The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen." So Condi is telling that that "this time" you need to make sure you have the support of the house and congress or she'll walk, you wouldn't be the first to walk out on this administration honey, you should have done it a while ago.


I wonder, even when presented with this scenario why people believe that this is still a reaction to the 9/11 attacks rather than an administration that has a larger strategy? President Bush already said in his address that the war will last into the next administration. They seem to want to control the oil in the Middle East(just trying to keep our prices down, man), not fight terrorism. As some people know just this morning, American troops arrested an Iranian Agent in Iraq this morning.


I will continue to watch this story, I hope you do to. I think that it is time to stop responding to 9/11 in Iraq, this is an outright strategy to control the Middle East. By our silence, we are allowing our government elect take us into yet another war. But is it a war? How will we know when we are done? Iran is next, then who?

John Stewart vs. Steven Hayes (Author of Cheney)-- Debate the Iraq War, the Drum-Up and Patriotism

Here is a video clip from Comedy Central with John Stewart and Steven Hayes discussing pleasantries regarding oil baron, vice president, person poacher, and Iraq War Protagonist (2001) and Antagonist (1994).

Digg Clip-- Report : Pentagon Can't Account For $19 Billion Spent On Iraqi Forces

"The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. "We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations"

Again I see that transparency is a problem. Are you telling me that with the onset of computers, technology and Microsoft excel or some other higher end database software that our governemnt does not track the money it spends in Iraq? You have got to be kidding me. Oh well, huh, life goes on you know. Governments sucks, but oh well, they'll never change.

read more | digg story

historymike: Bush Finally Finds His al Qaeda-Iraq Connection, Albeit Post-Invasion

historymike: Bush Finally Finds His al Qaeda-Iraq Connection, Albeit Post-Invasion

Here is a link to a good piece written on Toledo's History Mike's Musings, a local Ohio blogger. A great discussion of the George Bush revelation today about the Al Qaeida and Iraq. The anonymous poster is also funny in the comments section. Although, I do wonder how many people actually believe that speaking out against war is somehow leftist.

Then I read this post by Kris Kling on his blog The Kris Kling Opinion going off on someone:

http://tkko.blogspot.com/2007/05/you-are-proving-your-own-point.html

I don't know if the two posts go together, but I thought I would highlight their thoughts and keep encouraging change.

How many people vote for America idol but don't vote in US elections?

A NWO Blog--Who won the 2nd Republican Debate

Here is a link from Framed Discourse and Debate about who won the 2nd Republican Debate last night. The blogs author is James Trumm. I am copying his work on Rudy Guiliani and Ron Paul because it highlights my previous post, Why are we at war. James goes into a little more detail about the exchange and I think he does a great job in highlighting the scenario. You should also check out his blog (Title Link) for the rest of his reactions to the debate winners and losers.

Rudy Guiliani:

Giuliani didn't. He was doing fairly well--calling the Democrats' plan to get out of Iraq a "timetable for retreat," and handling the abortion questions much better that last time--until Ron Paul suggested that just maybe U.S. policies in the Middle East had something to do with motivating the 9/11 terrorists. Rudy went borderline apoplectic about this and took off after poor little Ron Paul like a rabid badger. It's a pretty basic rule of debate that you don't pick fights down; you can only hurt yourself. That's what he did. He overplayed his 9/11 hero cred and wound up looking like a bully--and not a very bright one at that.


Ron Paul:

Paul didn't, though as noted above, he probably benefited from having Rudy the Rabid charge after him. He could have gotten an even bigger boost had he not seemed to physically shrink in the face of Giuliani's bullying. He had the virtue of offering the most coherent philosophy. He had the courage to advocate dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, saying we didn't need another layer of bureaucracy to fight terrorism. He zinged the other candidates who used the term "enhanced interrogation techniques," saying it sounded like Newspeak. Yesterday I noticed that "Ron Paul" was the top Google search of the day, and his performance last night will probably keep him on top of those rankings for a while. Still, his repeated references to "my argument is . . ." made him seem like he was competing in a high school debate contest, not a Presidential primary. People don't vote for arguments.

Why are we at war?

Here is a post from the New Republic discussing the difference between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul regarding the War that Bin Laden has waged with the US.


I like what Ron Paul has to say about this war. His views are opposite of Rudy Giuliani who believes Islam does not like us because "freedom and women's rights."

Ron Paul believes that America's presence in the Middle East is because of

(1) US Involvement in the Middle East, (2) Palestine, and (3) Sanctions on Iraq as reasons why he has declared war

To me, just by reading the differences in thought Ron Paul's assessment seems more realistic. But just for probings sake I "scoured the internets" to see what else I could dig up on Bin Ladens reason for declaring War on The US. Here is what I found:

Here is a PBS transcript of the original FATWA (declaration of war) against the US

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Here is a transcript in Osama's own words discussing his anger about the occupation of the Holy Land and our relationship ($$) with Israel.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-05-07.htm

Here is some video of the Republican debate last night where Rudy blasted Ron Paul about his beliefs for our occupation and the reasons for war. Again using 9/11 as "the day the world changed" But more importantly it is a great compassionate compelling reason to really ask "Why do they hate us"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWMyMTBjOTMzOWY5NmIyYTRjNjAzNWYwY2NiYTVmNTg


What I think is sad is the fact that Ron Paul got a few claps and relieved cheers and Rudy got a raucous applause for his one liner.

To me it seems clear that we (the United States) have had a vested interest in the Middle East. We do fund a lot of projects in Israel, we do have a president with huge ties to Saudi Arabia, we have a desire to gain cheaper access to foreign oil. We have been in the middle east for as long as I remember. I think Rudy Giuliani is wrong by dismissing and attacking Ron Paul for his viewpoints and so are people who believe that the US is innocent in what it is strategically implementing overseas. Our actions have angered people and will continue to do so until we have a government that is able to take a look at itself and evaluate what is really best for our country. An American Embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican, should not be a priority.

Condoleezza Rice refuses/or does not want to testify

I saw this link on the Raw Story who got it from the AP(title link). It seems Condoleezza Rice does not feel she needs to testify to the from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on:

"Rice and the State Department have failed to respond to questions about the claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to by uranium from Niger."

Here is what she had to say to the AP reporter:

The Secretary of State also invoked executive privilege as a reason for not testifying.
"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," Rice noted

However:

"Her spokesman, Sean McCormack, said later that no final decision had been made about Rice appearing before the committee."


Bring her in. I think we need to see what she has to say. Plus, I want to see what she has to say to a committee. Those who paid attention got to see the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, not recall, any of the information.

( I think this is a Daily show transcript)

“After weeks of mock testimony, there you have it. Alberto Gonzales doesn’t know what happened, but he assures you what he doesn’t remember was handled properly.”

San Francisco Chronicle:

When told by reporters that Gonzales had replied "I don't recall" 55 times in his first round of questioning, ranking committee Republican Sen. Arlen Specter quipped, "That's an improvement, I'd say."

How he is still at his post I do not know.

Anyway, bring her in, let's see what she remembers.

Here is the vote and the response from the state department (from the AP article):

"Waxman's committee voted 21-10 on Wednesday to subpoena Rice despite the State Department's insistence that the questions have already been answered..."

Democrats Set Timetable for Iraq

The Democrats are trying to set a timetable for Iraq. Fall 2008. Of course Republicans are already attacking the plan. Here is the article, from the El Paso times, as an AP report.

The filing will also include 1.2 billion in funds to support military action in Afghanistan for a supposed "spring offensive" by the Taliban.

Let's see where this legislation will go. I think unless the "political aspect"(see the post right before this one) is figured out in Iraq, fall of 2008 is too far away. At least there is some healthy planning and debate going on.

New General in Iraq-- A Military Solution is Not Enough

Even for those who believe there is no civil war going on in Iraq, the new US Commander General Patraeus, says an end to the war would only come by bringing in the "militant" groups and giving them a voice at political tables.

He is quoted in the article with the following thoughts:

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect.”

I want to know what the extent of "political aspect" covers. Does he mean economic development, rebuilding, and policy/ strategy. Or does he mean political power and decision making? Or could it be a combination of both?

What is clear is that we can have as many troops as we want there to keep the peace and stop "militants" but the "War" will not be won without some other form of development. Remember, we are "building a democracy" where it has never really existed, so this type of bloodshed is really just "resistance to change". What is clear is that even the top military leaders of this "War" believe that a military presence alone CANNOT WIN THE WAR! There needs to be other plans in place for economic and political development. I sure hope someone in Washington is going to listen to General Patraeus and make a plan for the "political aspect."