Category: Iraq

Congress just authorized more spending, so I ask, does anyone REALLY comprehend just how big a number a million or a billion truly are?

By Susan Cornwell

Reuters

Friday, December 14, 2007; 3:38 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President George W. Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the U.S. Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administration’s plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House of Representatives and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

The bill authorized another $189.4 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, for which Congress has already approved some $600 billion. But it does not deliver the new money. That is done by appropriations legislation at the center of a big dispute on Capitol Hill.

Bush asks, Congress delivers.

Just like New Years is celebrated in Australia long before the ball drops in Times Square, Iraq Moratorium #4 dawns a week early today in at least one location.

Interesting that it rises early not in the East, but in Colorado Springs.

The Iraq Moratorium is observed on the Third Friday of every month. This month it falls on December 21, close to the holidays, the winter solstice, campus closings and a number of other possible distractions that present a challenge to organizers.

So, Pikes Peak Justice and Peace , the sponsor, which holds an action every month, moved it up a week for December only. PPJP is also responsible for the striking graphic above. Newspeak’s listing: :

Join PPJPC on Friday, Dec. 14 at the corner of E. Fountain & S. Academy for the fourth Iraq Moratorium. As in past events, they call for an end to the criminal occupation of Iraq and a peaceful resolution to our country’s differences with Iran.  Presence near the local headquarters of several prominent defense contractors will draw attention to the problem of military dependency in our local economy and the problems of waste, fraud, and cronyism in military contracting.

Gather at the Justice and Peace Commission’s office at 214 E. Vermijo and leave in a carpool between 11:00 and 11:30.  Because of the cold and the possibility of snow, dress warm and bring warm beverages to share if you can.   For more information about the national campaign, visit www.IraqMoratorium.org

For the rest of the country, there’s still a week to decide what to do to observe Iraq Moratorium #4.

For starters, consider taking the simple pledge on the website, saying you’ll break your daily routine on the Third Friday of every month and take some action, by yourself or with others, to end the war in Iraq.

You’ll find a list of events and suggestions for solo action on the site, too.  Event listings are still coming in every day; the last three months there have been 100 or more across the country, in addition to the countless individuals actions taken under the Moratorium banner.

Check it out.

This is a Quick posting as I just Uploaded the Video’s and am running around getting ready for work.

Congress Vows Action On Vets’ Suicides

‘Make VA go to the soldier’

When we last checked in with our intrepid antiwar warriors in Hayward, Wisconsin, they were basking in the afterglow of Iraq Moratorium #3, having turned out some 40 people in a city of 2129 for a roadside vigil. We noted that the same percentage turnout across the nation would put 6 million people in the streets, calling for an and to the Iraq war.

Now comes the local weekly, the Sawyer County Record, to remind us that organizing for peace in a small, rural community is not all seashells and balloons, as Al McGuire used to say (meaning everything was coming up roses.)  The paper reports:

They’ve become a familiar sight at the corner of Highways 63 and 27 in Hayward.

They hold signs. They wave. They usually smile.

They appreciate the honks of support. They tolerate the jeers and middle fingers pointed in their direction

.

But members of Peace North, which organizes the event, are busy working on turnout for Iraq Moratorium #4 next week, on Friday, December 21.

It’s a challenging time to organize for peace — four days before Christmas, one day before the shortest and darkest day of the year. It’ll be below freezing if not below zero in some parts of the country.  Most campuses will be shut down and students scattered.

Organizers are responding with some creative ideas, many of them holiday-themed to match the goodwill the season seems to generate. More events and plans are being listed every day on the Moratorium website.

“Dress warmly and be ready to sing,” warned organizers of the Patriots for Change peace vigil in Chagrin Falls, Ohio.

Mall walks, antiwar carols, Santa suits and hats, vigils and actions to reach out to holiday shoppers all are in the works.

In Valley Forge, Pennsylvania the Brandywine Peace Community plans a Christmas candlelight vigil at Lockheed Martin weapons complex,to include: reading of names of Iraq war dead (both Iraqi and U.S.)to the backdrop of Christmas Carols, bell-tolling, poetry and music, reading of the Christmas story and guest minister commentary on “Seeing the World Through Jesus Eyes”.

Check the website for an event near you.  But you don’t need an event to participate in the Iraq Moratorium.  All you need to do is to take some action on December 21 to express your wish for an end to the war.  Wear a button or a black armband to work or school.  Write, call or email your members of Congress.  Put a sign in your yard or hang one on a freeway overpass.   Make a donation.  The list is a long one, and you’ll find many more ideas on the website.

Do what you’re comfortable doing — but do something.

Curse the darkness, but also light a candle.

One closing note:  In our previous post in praise of Hayward, we erroneously identified the city as the Musky Capital of the World.  It turns out that although Hayward does play host to the Musky Festival and is the home of the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame, which features a musky sculpture half a block long and four and a half stories high, that Hayward is NOT the Musky Capital of the World.

That honor belongs to Boulder Junction, Wisconsin, which guards it zealously.

When one of the Peace North members in Hayward pointed that out, we agreed that when Boulder Junction turned out two per cent of its population for an Iraq Moratorium event we might set the record straight. But we’re doing it now anyway.  How about it, Boulder Junction?  Want to be the Peace Capital of the World?

Tomorrow December 12, 2007, there’s a hearing on Stopping Suicide and Ending Homelessness: Mental Health Challenges Within the Department of Veterans Affairs by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee,

Ilona Meagher, of PTSD Combat: Winning the War Within and author of Moving A Nation to Care: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and America’s Returning Troops, is scheduled to be one of the ones to testify at this Congressional hearing, as many already know. If you have the chance, and C-Span carries this hearing please watch! Ilona has a short send off post at her site, seems though she’s caught in the Mid West ice storm, here’s hoping this Important New Voice on PTSD can make it to DC!

As reported today by Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post (Ex-Pentagon Aide Says U.S. Abandoned Quick Iraq Transition), Doug Feith gave a speech last night at the American Enterprise Institute.  The article concentrates on the supposed attack he made on the administration of the Coalition Provisional Authority by L. Paul Bremer.

The key point according to Ricks was Feith’s statement that “a lengthy occupation was, I believe, the single biggest mistake the United States made in Iraq”.  Ricks further reports-

Bremer, in a brief telephone interview last night, took issue with Feith’s account. “His argument isn’t with me” but with Bush, Bremer said. The career diplomat said that Bush told him in May 2003, before he headed for Baghdad, to “take our time setting up an interim administration.” Even before he left Washington, Bremer added, he thought the U.S. occupation “was going to take a couple of years.” Bremer said Feith’s view that there was a major change in course that summer is incorrect.

Now I’m inclined to go with Bremer on this one since I think the war was all about the oil in the first place.  The major bases and the Vatican sized embassy (a monumental edifice complex that reminds me of Germania) are indicators of this as are all the neocon publications of the PNAC pundits that outline the subsequent course of action of this administration as surely as Mein Kampf.

Mid Eastern dominos and this time we win the Vietnam war.  They have nowhere to hide.  No Triple Canopy to protect them.  Sun Tzu knew a guerilla hides in and is hidden by the people.

All this talk about dominos has made me hungry and I haven’t even gotten to the main question which is based on this-

… Many military officers disliked his precise, intellectual approach to making decisions, which they found tangled and time-consuming. Most famously, retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who led the U.S. invasion force in Iraq, stated in his memoir that Feith had achieved the reputation within the military of being “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet.”

But Feith was consistently supported by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who in a 2004 interview with the Associated Press called him “without question, one of the most brilliant individuals in government” and “one of the really . . . intellectual leaders in the administration in defense policy.”

So, Feith- “precise, intellectual”, “one of the most brilliant individuals in government” or as brainy as a bag of rags?

Wisconsin’s Dave Obey, the House Appropriations chair, is never one to mince words.  

He’s famous for his explosive language and telling it like it is, even on the House floor.  

He’s got a temper (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)  And he hates to be pushed around.

So it should be no surprise that Obey has pulled the plug on the deal the Democrats were working on with the White House, to pour billions more into Iraq in return for some domestic pork.

The Washington Post reports:  

A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president’s spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers’ pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration’s top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“When the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey. He said he will push a stripped-down spending bill.

He’s just as hot in his Wall Street Journal quotes:

“I’m not in the business of trying to pave the way for $70 billion or $90 billion for Iraq for $10 billion in table scraps,” Obey said. “We asked Bush to compromise. He has chosen to go the confrontation route.”

“I want no linkage what-so-ever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn’t be trading off domestic priorities for the war.”

Whether he can make it stick is another question.  As chairman, he has a lot of clout.  But too many Democrats seem far to ready to wheel and deal and sell us out on the war, as noted here on Saturday.

But Obey, at least, has had enough.  He sounds ready to dig in for the long haul — unless his caucus undermines him, which would not be a shock.  Back to the Post:

House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president’s request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.

“If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they’re smoking something illegal,” he said.

A timely call to your representative in the House would be in order, asking him/her to do the right thing and refuse to support any Iraq appropriations that are not tied to troop withdrawals.

Call the House Switchboard 202-224-3121

Or go here to find email and phone for your representative.

UPDATE: Another Wisconsin blogger notes that Obey has been less than consistent on war funding and wonders whether he has seen the light.  

Finally, some good news from Iraq.

“We are winning,” declared former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee…Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee said the U.S. “must prevail” in the war, and added, “… I believe that we are.”

…Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani … said that the goal in Iraq should be a “victory for America.”

The phrase was striking because Bush himself, who often touted the U.S. strategy for victory, recently dropped the word “victory” from his lexicon as part of an administration effort to avoid appearing to overstate progress.

Excuse me, but I think this is where I came in.  

Mission accomplished? Victory?  Hardly.

Who’s kidding whom?

At best, we have a temporary respite from escalating numbers of deaths and attacks in Iraq since the so-called surge began.  

On Sunday, 23 civilian deaths were reported.  On Saturday, 26.  On Friday, 32.  The worst day last week was Wednesday, with 45 killed. The weekly total:  202.  Those are conservative numbers from a reliable source.

Thirty-seven US service members died in Iraq last month, the lowest monthly total since March 2006.

Lest anyone confuse those numbers with “victory,” consider this sobering assessment:

BAGHDAD — The U.S. troop buildup in Iraq was meant to freeze the country’s civil war so political leaders could rebuild their fractured nation. Ten months later, the country’s bloodshed has dropped, but the military strategy has failed to reverse Iraq’s disintegration into areas dominated by militias, tribes and parties, with a weak central government struggling to assert its influence.

In the south, Shiite Muslim militias are at war over the lucrative oil resources in the Basra region. To the west, in Anbar province, Sunni Arab tribes that once fought U.S. forces now help police the streets and control the highways to Jordan and Syria. In the north, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens are locked in a battle for the regions around Kirkuk and Mosul. In Baghdad, blast walls partition neighborhoods policed by Sunni paramilitary groups and Shiite militias.

“Iraq is moving in the direction of a failed state, a highly decentralized situation — totally unplanned, of course — with competing centers of power run by warlords and militias,” said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. “The central government has no political control whatsoever beyond Baghdad, maybe not even beyond the Green Zone.”

The key word in the first paragraph of that story is “failed.”

And that’s the situation with US troop levels at their peak.  A relative handful — 5,000 of the 162,000 US forces — are on their way home this month.

By next summer, 25,000 more are to come home under the plan put forward by Gen. David Patraeus.  That would merely bring troop levels back to where they were before the surge — and Patraeus has kept open the option of changing his mind, depending upon the security situation in Iraq.  

At the absolute best, that leaves 130,000 US troops in Iraq next July.

Victory?  Hardly.

There are plenty of words to describe the situation in Iraq, but victory is not one of them.  

We’ve got to keep the pressure on, or we’ll be hearing Hillary & Co. talking about “victory” in their next debate.

A real victory would consist of ending the war and bringing our troops home.  That is not even up for discussion by the Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, and gets very little traction with the leading Demomcrats, either.

It’s time to turn up the heat. Iraq Moratorium #4 on December 21 is a good place to start, but don’t stop there.  We’ve got to not only turn up the heat, but keep it on.  

Or we should consider the solution proposed by Sen. George Aiken, a Vermont Republican, during the Vietnam war:  Just declare victory and being the troops home.

That’s the kind of victory we could all get behind.    

If you ever wondered why the Democratic Congress hasn't ended the Iraq war — or even successfully made the tiniest step in that direction — it's all been laid out clearly in the last 24 hours.

1. The Democrats cave — again. The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of tough talk, Democrats appear resigned to back down again on providing money for the Iraq war.

What happened?

''Republicans, Republicans, Republicans,'' said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ''The real problem here is the president and his Republican backers'' who have ''staked out an increasingly hard-lined position.''

(Wonder if Democrats have ever thought of that tactic? Nah, not nice.)

2. Next we get some details from the Washington Post via Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leaders are contemplating legislation that would give President George W. Bush $70 billion in new funds for war but without any timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The deal would also include about $11 billion in additional domestic spending through September 2008 that Bush had opposed, said the Post, quoting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who met with the paper's editorial board on Friday.

Still unclear, however, is whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war, would go along with the unconditional money for combat after several attempts in the House to bring the fighting to an end.

3. Then the coup de grace, from the AP again:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Saturday threatened to veto a massive spending bill being assembled by congressional Democrats, saying it's unacceptable to add billions of dollars to domestic programs.

The White House has not seen details of the $500 billion-plus measure — which senior Democrats are constructing behind closed doors — but reacted to it based on media accounts.

The bill contains $11 billion above President Bush's February budget, awarding the money to domestic programs such as education and health research. It also may contain several billion dollars in ''emergency'' funding for border security, foreign aid, drought relief and a food program for women and children.

cross posted from DailyKos diary of Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:58:43 PM EST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Wouldn’t have posted two in a row on my first day here except it was myself I pushed down the line of diaries-:)

“Do you support the troops?”  I thought it was a simple yes-or-no question when I asked it in a DKos open thread.  The first five responders said yes, and a couple of them seemed baffled as to how I could even ask this and added, “Of course!”  Then I got the following comment.

What do you mean by support?  Do we value their lives, and believe those lives should not be lost in a futile and unjustified war?  Sure, of course.  But “support” – what do you mean?  It’s such a right-wing talking point, who does or does not “support the troops.”  Too many right-wingers believe that they “support” the troops by supporting the agenda of the war – as if, per the Tinker bell [sic] theory, if only every American believed in the Iraq war, then we would certainly win it and the troops could come home.  I also quibble with whether “support the troops” is supposed equate [sic] with “support the acts and conduct” of the troops in Iraq.

Thus, here we are with a diary in which I can explain my “simple” question.  I’ll explain, based on the thoughts of current and former Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers, and on my military experience (non-combat) from 1979 to 1982, what soldiers and veterans themselves think “supporting the troops” really means.

This diary is primarily for these readers:  1) those who would say “Of course!” without really analyzing what this means,  2) those who feel the same as the individual quoted above, 3) anyone who is not sure of their support for the troops, and 4) anyone who does not support the troops but feels open-minded on the subject.

Look for the poll at the end that reflects these points of view.

For the record, I am against the war in Iraq. I believe Bushco’s decision to invade Iraq will be seen by future generations as one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of our nation. I want the troops out of Iraq ASAP. I do not believe it is possible to win the war in Iraq. I denounce any torture. I believe Guantanamo should be closed. I believe what happened at Abu Ghraib was an atrocity, including the fact that the lower ranking individuals were too harshly punished and the higher-ups who ordered those types of torture–specifically outlined in selectively disseminated manuals–should have been punished. I loathe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. I will vote only for whoever is the Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2008.

That said–“Do You Really Support the Troops?

We can empathize, and imagine being in another’s shoes. We believe we know how we’d react in theoretical circumstances. But in reality it is impossible to know what we would do until we are actually confronted with the specific situation. Some deep, emotional, life-changing and unique experiences of any “group” absolutely can not be fully understood without having lived their experiences.

I am not African American so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be African American, and the prejudices, social, economic or life experiences of being African American. I am a recovering alcoholic (22 years sober on January 1, 2007). If you are not an alcoholic, it is impossible for you to fully understand this aspect of me. I am not gay, so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be gay, and the prejudices, social, economic or life experiences of being gay. I suffer from TBI (traumatic brain injury) and if you do not have this issue, it is impossible for you to fully understand what it is like for me. I am not a woman so it is impossible for me to fully understand what it is like to be a woman and vice versus.

You get my point. These are all multi-faceted issues. No matter how we think we would handle our lives, if we don’t have those experiences there is absolutely no way for any of us to truly know how we would react, behave, or perceive life. We do not know what decisions we would or would not make as a result.  

I have one more. If you have never been in the military, it is impossible for you to fully understand those of us who have. If you have not been in a war, in combat, it is impossible for you to fully understand what it is like for those who have. Although I understand so much of military life, I was not in combat; I accept my inability to truly understand that experience.

Now here are thoughts and feelings of a man who is currently serving our nation in Iraq.

It is my belief that a great deal of the American public believe that ALL military personnel WANT to be over here doing what we are doing. What they don’t understand is the old saying that “no one hates a war as much as a Soldier hates a war”. We are sent to do the dirty work for someone that is not willing to do it those selves. We didn’t ask for it, and never got a vote in it but we made a commitment to do it. Unfortunately the U.S. military is the only one at war. The rest of the government, and the country for that matter, are not really involved and that is the greatest shame of it all.

When I asked if I could use his comment; here is his revealing response.

Sir, please feel free to use my post if it will help get the true message out about how we feel over here and using my ID is fine as well if you need to. And please include the fact that the “overwhelming” majority of Captains and Majors I work around and with are of the same mind. I am not sure who the Congressmen speak to when they visit here but they would be surprised if they actually talked to someone that was not “handpicked” to give them the party line.

I could have done without the “Sir.” I worked for a living! 🙂 This is an old service joke; “Sir” is how we refer to commissioned officers; I was a sergeant, an NCO.

I sincerely appreciate this soldier’s honesty. He goes a long way in clarifying why service members join the military; there are purely personal reasons but for most there is an overriding sense of duty and loyalty to our country and to the Constitution. After 9/11 many enlistments were out of patriotism, a desire to protect our nation–you and I–from terrorists.

Whether or not you believe that terrorism is a threat to our nation, many of those who joined the military in the years after 9/11 believed with all their heart and soul that it was. Call them fools, call them naive, call them conned–the fact is they believed and therefore they truly had the most honorable, heroic, patriotic and noble of intentions. I believe were we all as willing to put our life on the line for our beliefs our nation would be far better off.

Now, try to imagine you believed as they did and you enlisted in the year or two after 9/11. You are in Iraq for a year and you realize this is a war we never should have started, a war we cannot win. We are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The Iraqi police, military and politicians are not stepping up to the plate. Here’s an assessment from a soldier in a position to know.

The “democratically” elected government of Iraq (GOI) is doing FAR more than dragging ass . . .  this is as close as I can get to the truth of it.  

There is a problem  

GOI asks us to fix the problem  

We tell them to fix it themselves, here is the money  

Problem remains unfixed  

We say we will fix the problem, give us the money back  

They give us 1/3 of the money back and say the rest was used

to think of a way to fix the problem  

We fix the problem with [more of] our own money  

There is a problem

Starting to get the picture? Things like this make me a real fan of “Baptism by Fire” for this “democratically” elected government.  As long as we keep doing for them, they have no reason to do it themselves.

The vast majority of your own nation is against this war. American politicians are using you for political gain on each side of the aisle. What do you do?

If you have not ever been in the military and you really believe you can answer this question without a doubt, you are simply fooling yourself. If you want to try to walk a mile in their boots, I will attempt to help you do so. You might learn what kind of boots they are wearing. . If you are open- minded, you might be able to discern the make of the boot. I myself haven’t had the experience, so you still won’t know the exact model boot. That is as close as my words can get you to “walking a mile in their boots”.

Remember, you raised your right hand to God and you swore this oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Remember, you went through seven weeks to 12 weeks of basic training. You were brainwashed. You were broken down and rebuilt. The beliefs (patriotism, national security, defend our people) you already held, were driven deeper and deeper.

Remember, you have become like a brother, a sister, a father to ten, twenty, thirty or more men and women who have saved your life on several occasions, and you theirs.

Remember, you have shared with these brothers- and sisters-in-arms the deaths of others in your “family.” You saw some of your “family” blown into pieces by an explosion. You put their body parts in body bags. You put a tourniquet on your friend’s stump when his leg was blown off. You started her I.V. and tried initial life saving techniques. You sat next to him as he squeezed your hand and screamed in horrendous pain; you told her she was going to be all right even though you were not sure.

One night you had a few beers with one of your “best friends”, someone you knew you would keep in touch with the rest of your life, if you both survived this debacle! You laughed and joked and exchanged stories about stupid things you did at home when you were drunk. The next morning you were together in a Humvee making a routine patrol when you heard gunfire closer than usual. You turned to check your buddy, as always. You saw that most of his head had disappeared, like JFK’s in those final frames of Zapruder’s film.

Remember all that you have read since I asked that question, unanswerable for a non-combat veteran. What do you do? Consider your limited options. Still think you know for sure what you would do?

This, from the person who asked me what I meant by “support the troops,” sticks with me.

I also quibble with whether “support the troops” is supposed [sic] equate with “support the acts and conduct” of the troops in Iraq.

I wonder if this person believes that what he or she thinks his or her conduct would be in circumstances unimaginable in the worst nightmares. If this person is sure of that hypothetical conduct, if anyone is, that person is a fool.