Middle East Features
Nov 8, 2007, 14:59 GMT
Iraqis prepare for fuel shortages ahead of a cold season
And Also
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Israel slams reported EU initiative on Jerusalem
- 2. At least three killed in fresh Iraq violence (1st Lead)
- 3. Iraqi militants attack checkpoint near Falluja
- 4. Tehran to send complaint letters over anti-Iran resolution
- 5. Iran denies once again confiscating Nobel laureate's medal
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
Here:
In remarks yesterday, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman criticized the Democratic presidential candidates for their adherence to the views of the “politically paranoid, hyper-partisan” liberal base of the Democratic party, saying that allegiance could harm the eventual nominee’s chances of gaining entry to the White House...
In the speech, Senator Lieberman referred to his primary loss, and denounced the anti-war base of the Democratic party that worked hard to defeat him last year. Despite the fact that he overcame that opposition and won re-election, leading Democrats and many of the presidential candidates, consider the 2006 election results — which gave Democrats majorities in the House and Senate — a mandate against the Iraq war.
From the text of the speech released by his Senate office, Mr. Lieberman argues otherwise and in fact, challenges the Democratic party and its candidates:
============================================================
'Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.
Part of the explanation for this, I think, comes back to ideology. For all of our efforts in the 1990s to rehabilitate a strong Democratic foreign policy tradition, anti-war sentiment remains the dominant galvanizing force among a significant segment of the Democratic base.
But another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.
In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s – even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest.'
The senator, who has been a stalwart supporter of President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq and who has voted with Republicans on several measures pertaining to that policy, then offered up his view of what’s happening on the campaign trail in relation to his sponsorship of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. Approved in a vote of 76-22, the amendment, which Democratic front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton has been criticized for supporting, called for the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and to impose economic sanctions on it.
Mr. Lieberman called opposition to the amendment, “a case study in the distrust and partisan polarization that now poisons our body politic on even the most sensitive issues of national security.” He then assessed how Democratic officials have been swayed by anti-war forces within the party:
'First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.
These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.
On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.
Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it — and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.'
And just one further passage, before Senator Lieberman concluded that people should consider themselves “independent Democrats or independent Republicans:”
' I understand that President Bush is a divisive figure. I recognize the distrust that many Americans feel toward his administration. I recognize the anger and outrage that exists out there about the war in Iraq.
But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.
There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.
For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.
That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.'
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/lieberman-calls-liberal-democrat ic-base-paranoid
COMMENTARY
A Failure to Lead
============
By KARL ROVE
============
November 9, 2007; Page A19
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1 -- five weeks ago -- but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
[Illo]
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about 'fiscal discipline' is just that -- talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a 'relatively small' difference.
Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as 'tax reform' by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.
Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to 'support our troops,' Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a 'Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism,' Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close 'critical gaps in our intelligence capability.' Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised 'civility and bipartisanship.' Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.
The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
:-D
(General Petraeus seems to have brought Ahmed Chalabi back into the game as his 'Mr. Fixit', and now we have contradictory reports as to electricity in Baghdad, one of the items on Chalabi's to-do list. This bum was responsible for feeding lies about Saddam's capabilities to Bush, and now sees the opportunity for a return to power, as an alternative to al-Maliki).
www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_071101_petraeus_rehabilitat.h tm
'The key is going to be getting the concerned local citizens — and all the citizens — feeling that this government is reconnected with them . . . Chalabi 'agrees with that.' --Gen. David Petraeus in October 2007
An article published by Blackanthem Military News reported that the Commanding General in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, has taken it on himself to rehabilitate the duplicitous opportunist who sold the U.S. the lies about threats from Saddam's regime which led Clinton to legislate regime change for Iraq, and provided cover for the Bush administration's invasion and occupation years afterward.
Ahmad Chalabi, the man who Bush installed as the head of the 'interim Iraq authority' after his illegal invasion and overthrow of Saddam, was reportedly treated like a visiting dignitary as Petraeus introduced him to members of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga. stationed in Iraq.
(Now we hear from the infamous O'Hanlon, late of the 'we're winning' press release that preceded the Petraeus testimony, on electricity in Baghdad, complete with the usual offset to that news)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2848203.ece
Michael O’Hanlon, an expert on Iraq at the Brookings Institution in Washington, believes some trends are in the right direction. “Electricity production is finally up, roughly 20% over typical Saddam Hussein levels,” he noted, “not even counting the additional growth in the informal Iraqi electricity market, which probably adds another 20% to 30%.”
The data on water and sewage, however, was disappointing, and job creation remains weak. “At best, the economy is a wash, neither helping nor hurting our overall efforts to contain the violence and help construct a working political system,” he concluded.
Chalabi knows there is only a small window of opportunity for services to improve. As Fil warned last week, the lull in violence may not last.
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-01-01.asp
Iraqi Electricity Crisis: Baghdad Suffers Worst Cuts
BAGHDAD, Iraq, November 1, 2007 (ENS) - Despite years of work and billions of dollars spent trying to repair Iraq's decrepit electricity system, Baghdad's power supply remains intermittent and well below pre-war levels.
Baghdad in the first week in October averaged six hours of electricity per day, half as much as the rest of the country, according to the U.S. State Department. The capital's residents have become almost entirely dependent on expensive private generators to light their homes and run basic appliances such as refrigerators.
Iraq's electricity grid nearly collapsed this summer and the shortages were the worst since the summer of 2003, reported the ministry of electricity, and some Baghdad neighborhoods have had only a few hours of power a day. The capital's power supply is 'woefully inadequate,' U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told American lawmakers in September.
Baghdad had 16 to 24 hours of power daily in March 2003. Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein directed the lion's share of the country's electricity supply to the capital, leaving other areas short.
U.S. and Iraqi authorities have tried to repair the power systems and equalize electricity distribution in Iraq. But as demand has increased for electricity, violence, corruption and mismanagement have hindered years of efforts to improve the power supply - particularly in the capital - and have weakened the confidence of Iraqis in their government.
'Every year, the ministry announces emergency plans and projects … but the power doesn't improve,' said Ziyad Mahmood Ahmed, a 35-year-old civil servant from Baghdad's Dora district. 'On the contrary, electricity was even bad in winter this year. There are areas in Baghdad that had power cuts for more than 10 days.'
The United States inherited a shoddier power system than it had predicted after overthrowing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in April 2003. U.S. military air strikes badly damaged Iraq's power plants in 1991, and its infrastructure crumbled further under sanctions imposed by the United Nations.
Washington has allocated over US$4.6 billion, or about one-quarter of its Iraq reconstruction budget, for power projects since 2003. Yet only 57 percent of Iraq's demand is being met, and the country as a whole has fewer hours of power daily than it did in the spring of 2004. The ministry of electricity estimates it will cost US$27 billion to repair and build infrastructure through 2015.
(Once more this Administration flack does his good news/bad news polka, and propagandists weed out the portion that they like, discarding the rest. Here's the real story on power in Baghdad. Since Saddam favored Baghdad in terms of power delivery, the situation in Iraq as a whole is worse than is stated, in the first place)
electroniciraq.net/news/aiddevelopment/The_Iraqi_electricity_crisis-323 1.shtml
SULAIMANIYAH - Iraq's electricity system has been in shambles for nearly two decades, and power continues to be the country's largest reconstruction challenge.
It is also the common complaint that links all of Iraq. Despite the widespread violence, bombs and shootings do not affect every province - but the lack of electricity is a burden every Iraqi must bear. In the hour or so it took to write this report, for example, the power blacked out and returned five times in the Sulaimaniyah neighborhood where IWPR is based.
For outsiders, electricity may seem a trivial concern compared with the rest of Iraq's problems. But the reality is that there is a lot of talk about megawatts, kilovolts and amperes among ordinary people, most of whom have no professional background in electricity but have become experts nonetheless. Power is a primary issue for Iraqis, one that the United States and Iraq's national and local governments recognize is integral to the development of the country. Electricity has, in many ways, become Iraq's most valued resource.
A limited electricity supply forces businesses and homes to buy their own generators. They must supply fuel for those generators, which is usually purchased at an inflated price on the black market. The generators may or may not provide enough power to run a refrigerator, for example, and only wealthier Iraqis can afford a generator that can power an air conditioner or a heater.
The US has poured about 4.7 billion dollars into repairing Iraq's electricity networks, but Baghdad receives fewer hours of power than it did four years ago. Most of the rest of the country enjoys more hours of electricity but is nowhere near receiving 24-hour power. The US Embassy in Baghdad reports that electricity production should be around 8,440 megawatts, but the supply is just under 5,000 megawatts for a variety of reasons including attacks on electricity infrastructure, corruption, poor maintenance and fuel shortages.
An IWPR report from Baghdad explains why the capital has the worst power in the country. US reconstruction money is drying up, and the Iraqi ministry of electricity estimates it will cost 27 billion dollars to repair the system.
Corruption is one of the major issues frustrating Iraq's development. In Karbala, so-called emergency lines which provide 24-hour power to hospitals, police stations and other places crucial to the community are also being used illegally by officials, political parties and militias, according to an IWPR report.
Iraqi Kurdistan's economic growth and relative stability have not saved it from blackouts. The north is plagued by an irregular power supply that has brought Kurdish residents into the streets to protest against the government. The Kurdistan Regional Government says it has hundreds of millions of dollars in electricity projects underway, but few locals have seen the benefits.
(This is a link to the full Iraq Governance Reporting Project)
www.iwpr.net/?apc_state=henpicr&s=o&o=iraq_igr_index.html
Stay on the subject, clown.
Your totems have nothing to do with the mess in Iraq, except perhaps for their blind support of this calamity costing the U.S. taxpayers well over a TRILLION DOLLARS if-and-when it ever concludes.
Baghdad electricity'
ATTACKS ARE DOWN 80% and you are whining about electricity! The electricity went out the other night in lower Manhattan! It is hilarious how you will not acknowledge the obvious! 6 Months ago there were hundreds of people being slaughtered by al Qaeda and Shiite terrorists every day. NOW THERE ARE NOT! You are whining about electricity problems in Baghdad... Something that has been a problem since the British left as a desperate attempt to deflect away from the obvious... Had we followed the advice off YOU and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha and Hillary Clinton we would have turned the country over to the terrorists who would now be working on how to best attack us.
You and the rest of the cowardly, duplicitous traitors were WRONG.
It takes a big man to admit that you were wrong... Then again you have shown yourself not to be ANY KIND of man.
' Here's the real story on power in Baghdad.'
HERE is the real story in Baghdad... Terrorist attacks are down 80%! Murders have dropped to just a hand full from hundreds! Al Qaeda has been 'routed'.
Now post some nonsense about Iraqi street sweepers or the wait for the cable guy in Karkh as 'proof' that we still might lose this war...
'Contradictory stats on Baghdad electricity #2'
'Michael O’Hanlon, an expert on Iraq at the Brookings Institution in Washington, believes some trends are in the right direction. “Electricity production is finally up, roughly 20% over typical Saddam Hussein levels,” he noted, “not even counting the additional growth in the informal Iraqi electricity market, which probably adds another 20% to 30%.”
ATTACKS ARE DOWN 80%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOT....
'The data on water and sewage, however, was disappointing,'
OH well, we should still cut and run then, eh? Just like you advocated before?
'BAGHDAD, Iraq, November 1, 2007 (ENS) - Despite years of work and billions of dollars spent trying to repair Iraq's decrepit electricity system, Baghdad's power supply remains intermittent and well below pre-war levels.'
'Environment News Source' is not a legitimate news source. You just posted something from the London times that said '“Electricity production is finally up, roughly 20% over typical Saddam Hussein levels,”'
I cant believe what a moron you are.... 4 posts about electricity in Baghdad...all ignoring the stats out of Iraq. Electricity will come when there are enough people willing to work on the wiring that was last worked on by the British when they ran the place... That will come when people realize that attacks are down 80% and that they can go do their job now without getting your head cut off.
No more about electricity in Baghdad... It just shows that you are grasping at straws to declare that all is lost.
'What do Rove and Lieberman contribute?'
Lieberman was dead on, Rove was a guilty pleasure I will admit.
'Stay on the subject, clown.'
Prepare yourself to eat those words....
'Your totems have nothing to do with the mess in Iraq'
Unlike 4 posts on whether or not Baghdad is improving it's electricity delivery.... all the while ignoring ATTACKS ARE DOWN 80% Had we followed the advice off YOU and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha and Hillary Clinton we would have turned the country over to the terrorists who would now be working on how to best attack us.
You and the rest of the cowardly, duplicitous traitors were WRONG.
It takes a big man to admit that you were wrong... Then again you have shown yourself not to be ANY KIND of man.
Back to the subject, clown...
====================================================
====================================================
I know those who are wedded to the idea of a failed Iraq are calling me a deluded idiot and worse. But things are improving slowly. My relatives in Baghdad say there's no comparison; things are much better than they were six months ago. They can visit friends in different areas and walk about the neighbourhood in the evening.
Frankly, I don't understand why so many mock us for wanting a future for Iraq. Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?
It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.
====================================================
====================================================
So, when are you going to admit it?
At war with reality
Monday, November 12th 2007, 4:00 AM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi miscalculated once more - failing, apparently, even to glance at the calendar, and thus seeking to ram through another pull-out-of-Iraq bill on Veterans Day weekend yet. Very bad appearances there, and Pelosi rescheduled the vote for later on.
Nor did Pelosi appear to note that word has come in from Baghdad that U.S. commanders are happy about the greatly improved security situation in most quarters of town. A top American commander, in fact, told The New York Times the military has routed Al Qaeda forces from Baghdad, putting U.S. brass in position to withdraw surge troops as planned. 'Murder victims are down 80% from where they were at the peak,' said Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil.
By failing to respond to progess in Iraq, congressional Democrats have taken to pursuing symbolic measures that are increasingly counterproductive and will likely come back to haunt the party. They'd do well to heed Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who recalled in a speech that 'Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy forged a foreign policy that was simultaneously principled, internationalist and tough-minded.'
But now, Lieberman said, 'No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. ... Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.'
In other words, the facts on the ground should matter to the Dems, but for now, they don't.
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/11/12/2007-11-12_at_war_with_reality. html
A man died and went to heaven ...
As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, 'What are all those clocks?'
St. Peter answered, 'Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on earth has a
Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.'
'Oh,' said the man, 'whose clock is that?'
'That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she
never told a lie.'
'Incredible,' said the man. 'And whose clock is that one?'
St. Peter responded, 'That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved
twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.'
'Where's President Bush's clock?' asked the man.
'Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan.'
(The Democrats are not the problem here, dickwad)
www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Articl e_Type1&c=Article&cid=1194855342258&call_pageid=1024322168441&col=102432259 6091
Iraqi government riddled with fraud, graft and corruption
HENRY A. WAXMAN
Two truths have emerged from Iraq in recent months. First, corruption is so pervasive in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government that political progress in Iraq might be impossible. Second, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the U.S. embassy in Baghdad are inexplicably neglecting this corrosive threat.
Confronting these facts is difficult. Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and another 28,000 wounded in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. No one wants to believe these sacrifices were made to establish and support a regime riddled with fraud and graft. But as President George W. Bush asks for an additional $153 billion for the war, we can't shrink from this reality.
Hearings in the House of Representatives oversight and government reform committee, of which I am chair, have revealed a devastating cycle of corruption. Rampant theft in Iraqi ministries undermines political reconciliation and diverts billions of dollars from the rebuilding effort. Even worse, the stolen money funds terrorists who attack our troops.
Yet no one in the U.S. government is holding Iraqi ministers to account.
The faltering efforts to restore integrity to the Iraqi government suffered a major blow when the chief anti corruption official, Judge Radhi Hamza Radhi, was driven out of Iraq in August and replaced by an al-Maliki crony. In graphic testimony, Radhi told the oversight committee that 31 of his investigators were assassinated after implicating Iraqi officials in the theft and diversion of $18 billion.
Radhi showed the committee secret orders signed by al-Maliki's chief of staff that prohibited probes into misdeeds by top Iraqi officials, including the prime minister. The oil ministry, he said, is now 'effectively funding terrorism.'' He also reported that al-Maliki personally blocked an investigation of his cousin, the transportation minister.
Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, shares Radhi's alarm. The rising tide of corruption in Iraq is, in Bowen's words, a 'second insurgency.''
Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department, which should be leading the battle against corruption, is missing in action. Its office of accountability and transparency, which is supposed to support Iraqi anti-corruption efforts, has been led by four different directors in the last 10 months. (Incredibly, the most recent acting director previously worked as a paralegal.) The only permanent director of the office, Judge Arthur Brennan, told the committee that there is no 'co-ordinated U.S. strategy to fight corruption in Iraq.''
The director of the State Department's Anticorruption Working Group provided a similar assessment, stating: 'I would like to be able to say that we've done quite a bit in this area, but unfortunately, we have not. ... (T)o be completely, embarrassingly honest with you, there's not a lot of conversation going on.''
The secretary of State seemed completely unaware of the extent to which her own department's anti-corruption efforts are in disarray when she testified before the oversight committee on Oct. 25. Rice acknowledged there is 'a very bad problem of corruption in Iraq. It is a problem in ministries, it is the problem in government, it is a problem with officials.''
Yet she endorsed al-Maliki's performance, asserting, 'Prime Minister Maliki has made the fighting of corruption one of the most important elements of his program.'' She promised to co-operate with the committee's investigations, but then insisted discussions of corruption take place in closed session, which would defeat the purpose of oversight.
The al-Maliki government is our ally in Iraq, so I understand why she and Bush find the mounting evidence of fraud and graft inconvenient. But the moral, political and practical implications of this corruption cannot responsibly be ignored.
Military success in Iraq isn't an end unto itself: It is a bridge to the ultimate goal of a lasting peace. If the al-Maliki government is too corrupt to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq can we in good conscience continue to ask our troops to risk their lives and our taxpayers to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in this war?
Henry A. Waxman, a Democrat congressman from California, is chair of the House or Representatives committee on oversight and government reform.
'Great joke of the day'
Nope. Sucked.
'The Democrats are not the problem here, dickwad'
So is that an answer to the question at hand? No, you don't answer questions do you? That would be even more embarrassing.
'HENRY A. WAXMAN '
A Liberal idiot. The funny thing is, even HE voted for the Iraq war.... I can abide by the people who took a stand against Iraq from the beginning. As I have pointed out, I didn't think the Iraq invasion was the best way to go about achieving our objectives. What I really can't stand, what I loathe are the craven political hacks like Waxman who voted to send our troops out on a limb and who have, on purely political and self interested reasons, have decided to cut the limb out from under them. They are despicable scumbags.
In terms of 'a political solution, not a military one'... I have dared you to deny that one is possible with out the other... I dare you to tell me that a political solution is possible with al Qaeda setting off car bombs in markets and slaughtering people in the streets. You have run away from that dare repeatedly, just like you have run away from admitting that you were wrong about the war being 'lost'. Real men admit it when they were wrong.
AS IRAQ IMPROVES, COVERAGE DRIES UP
By RALPH PETERS November 13, 2007 -- LAST weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The 'mainstream media' honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.
All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.
Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the 'leading' newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.
Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.
Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?
The media's new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything's still a disaster.
www.nypost.com/seven/11132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_forgotten_wa r_700971.htm
n wartime, low death toll is news, too
By: Richard Benedetto
Nov 12, 2007 08:33 PM EST
Those who argue that the media play up bad news from Iraq and play down good news picked up some added ammunition for their argument recently when many major news organizations buried or ignored the news that U.S. troop deaths in Iraq in September were at their lowest monthly level since March 2006.
None of the top newspapers played it on their Oct. 31 front page, the day after the reports were released.
Many, including The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and USA Today, played it well inside the paper. But some, including The New York Times, The Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times, didn’t mention it at all, instead trumpeting bad news from Iraq.
www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6830.html
Maliki Intends to Lift Curfew in Baghdad
Planned Easing of Security Restrictions Reflects Recent Drop in Violence, Officials Say
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A14
BAGHDAD, Nov. 12 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hopes to soon declare an end to a nine-month-old security plan and curfew in Baghdad because of a recent decline in violence, Iraqi officials said Monday.
Maliki expects to gradually lift the curfew, which now extends from midnight to 5 a.m., and to reopen this month 10 roads in the capital that have been shut as a security precaution, according to one of his aides. The aide cautioned that the plans could be altered depending on fast-moving conditions on the ground.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR200711120196 2.htm
Roadside bombs in Iraq fall sharply
By Blake Morrison and Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
The number of roadside bombs found in Iraq declined dramatically in August and September from earlier this year, and U.S. officials say the discoveries of thousands of ammunition caches might explain the drop.
Improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are responsible for at least 60% of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The Pentagon has repeatedly refused to release figures on the number of IED attacks in Iraq or the number of casualties that have resulted.
USA TODAY obtained the month-by-month tally, which represents the total numbers of IEDs — exploded or unexploded — found in Iraq, including those targeting U.S. and coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians.
Since the start of the year through September, coalition forces found 25,208 IEDs, according to the figures, which were confirmed by the Pentagon. In those nine months, IEDs killed 510 coalition troops.
The numbers of IEDs found and the deaths they caused have declined steadily since June. In September, coalition forces found 2,022 IEDs. That's down 38% from March, this year's peak.
On Monday, the U.S. command in Baghdad also said rocket and mortar attacks have dropped to their lowest levels in 21 months. The tallies were issued a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also declined.
U.S. officials say the figures show that efforts to crack the Iraqi insurgency are succeeding. The decline in IEDs is due to 'a combination of the right technology and equipment, world-class training, and successfully attacking the networks that build and employ the IEDs,' says retired Army general Montgomery Meigs, director of the military's Joint IED Defeat Organization.
In Iraq last week, U.S. commanders cited a spike in the number of ammunition caches that U.S. and coalition forces have found. 'The clearing of these caches has helped contribute to the downward trends we are seeing in IED explosions and indirect fire,' Rear Adm. Gregory Smith said.
In the first 10 months of 2007, coalition and Iraqi forces have found 5,364 caches of explosives and ammunition — twice the volume found in all of 2006. 'These caches consist of a range of munitions, homemade explosives and other items necessary to build improvised explosive devices,' Smith said.
Iraqi security forces found and cleared many of the caches, Smith said. He credited the increasing effectiveness of those forces and the recent surge in U.S. troops as key factors.
'Starting in April, when the majority of the surge forces had arrived in Iraq, the number of caches found spiked considerably. And in the ensuing months, we've seen a steady increase,' Smith said.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of the capital, said Sunday he believed the decrease in rocket and mortar attacks would hold because of what he called a 'groundswell' of support from regular Iraqis. 'If we didn't have so many people coming forward to help, I'd think this is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case,' Lynch said.
Contributing: Paul Overberg; the Associated Press
US pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq's Diyala province
Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:26am EST
By Missy Ryan
BAGHDAD, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is sending 3,000 soldiers home from Diyala province, the second large unit to leave Iraq as troop levels are cut after a 30,000-strong 'surge' earlier this year.
Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, will not be replaced by a new unit when they leave the ethnically and religiously mixed province north of Baghdad by January, U.S. military officials said on Tuesday.
Instead, troops from the larger 4th Striker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, located near Baghdad, will take over the area, said military spokeswoman Major Peggy Kageleiry.
'Most of the (brigade) will be home by Christmas and indeed a few people have left,' Kageleiry said.
About 2,200 Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left western Anbar province in late September under U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to cut troop levels in Iraq.
Bush poured in an extra 30,000 troops from mid-February in a bid to stop Iraq spiralling into sectarian civil war. There are around 162,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon said.
U.S. and Iraqi officials say the troop 'surge', more efficient Iraqi security forces and the use of neighbourhood patrols have helped bring about sharp falls in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties in the past two months.
Kageleiry said the overall number of troops in Diyala, where violence spiked when al Qaeda fighters were driven out of western Anbar province earlier this year, would not decrease.
With the daily toll of suicide bombs, sectarian killings and other violence slowing, General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to pull out five of his 20 brigades in Iraq by July 2008.
'The security situation in northern Iraq has improved exponentially,' Kageleiry said. 'The ultimate goal is to transition Iraqi security forces to be able to provide security to citizens of Diyala independent of coalition forces.'
Mortar and rocket attacks dropped to their lowest level in October since February 2006. In Baghdad, Iraqi military officials plan to reopen some streets and hope to end a joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad soon...
www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL13727119
Iraq rocket fire 'falls sharply'
Reduced rocket attacks appear to be part of a wider fall in violence
Rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq are reported to have fallen to their lowest levels for nearly two years.
The US military said such attacks in October fell to 369, half the level during October 2006. This is the third month running of reduced rocket fire.
Mortar and rocket attacks in Baghdad showed a similar pattern, falling to 53 in October from more than 200 in June.
US officials said this was in part due to the US troop surge for the capital launched in February.
Other reasons for the reduction were the discovery of arms caches following tip-offs from Iraqis, the killing of more insurgents and successful reconciliation campaigns, US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel James Rikard said.
Upbeat briefings
US commanders and Iraqi officials have been briefing regularly that violence levels have dropped.
This appears to be supported by figures from Iraqi ministries on the death toll in Iraq - 887 Iraqis were killed in October, up on the September figure but significantly lower than the 1,992 deaths recorded in January 2007.
Some US military officials have said that al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group believed to be behind many of the biggest suicide bombings, has been driven out of Baghdad.
Other senior US officers warned recently that the downward trend in violence was not yet irreversible.
On Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said that car bombs and roadside bombings in Baghdad had dropped by 77% compared to levels prior to the launch of the US troop surge.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7090535.stm
Yup, you were wrong.
By Tony Blankley
It has become obligatory for both pro- and anti-war commentators never to mention the possibility of victory in Iraq. The most that anti-war people will admit is that the surge has gained a temporary military advantage in a war that cannot be won militarily. The most pro-war commentators will claim is that they see the possibility of success, perhaps, maybe, someday, somehow.
But as of Veterans Day 2007, I think one can claim a very real expectation that next year, the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq war. In five years, we will have overturned Saddam Hussein's government, killed, captured or driven out almost all al-Qaida terrorists, suppressed the violent Shiite militias, induced the Sunni tribal leaders and their people to shun resistance and send their sons into the army and police and seek peaceful resolution of disputes -- and we will have stood up a multisectarian, tribally inclusive army capable of maintaining the peace that our troops established.
The reports coming out of Iraq the past month suggest we are not yet there -- but almost. As The Washington Times summarized this week: 'The Associated Press reported: 'Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle.'' According to The Washington Post: 'The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing. ... The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006.' And on Thursday, The New York Times noted: 'American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned.' Investor's Business Daily assessed: 'Many military analysts -- including some who don't support the war -- have concluded that the U.S. and its allies are on the verge of winning.'
Last weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said violence between Sunnis and Shiites has nearly disappeared from Baghdad, with terrorist bombings down 77 percent. This was confirmed by Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces south of the capital: 'If we didn't have so many Iraqi people coming forward to help, I'd think this is a flash in the pan. But that's just not the case.'
All of this is the result of the most underreported successful military operation since the invention of the telegraph. For a detailed account of Gens. Petraeus and Odierno's counterinsurgency campaign, see Kimberly Kagan's meticulous article in The Weekly Standard. But the point to take away from the surge is that, though a brilliant military operation, it was never just a military operation. Rather it developed a political, economic and communications infrastructure that is permitting local-level reconciliation. We are creating representative governance from the bottom up -- not from the Green Zone down. Despite a frail and inept national government, the people in the towns and provinces (under the tutelage of the U.S. military) seem to be forming order out of the chaos.
The victory will not have come cheap. According to The Associated Press, 3,861 American troops have been killed in Iraq.
Last Sunday, I attended a Veterans Day commemoration at the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery. My only role there was as husband of the keynote speaker. After the formal ceremonies, as we were talking with people, I had a conversation with a former Marine. He was there with his 8-year-old son. He explained that his 21-year-old -- the oldest of his four sons -- had been killed in combat in Iraq just a couple of months ago. He showed us a picture of his fallen son. He was a good-looking, open-faced kid with a winning grin leaning out of his armored vehicle. He died leading his men to the sound of the guns. He is now buried there in that central Texas veterans cemetery, where last Sunday, a hard wind blew, snapping the many Old Glories that stood sentry for our fallen warriors. And the 8-year-old, who idolized his fallen big brother, can hardly wait to be old enough to join up to finish his brother's job. (Of course, we know that in this world, that job of warrior will never be done -- as the postwar period ever glides seamlessly into the new prewar period.)
Standing there surrounded by thousands of veterans' gravestones and looking into the faces of the bereaved, I think of these young heroes today who are doing in Iraq what Ronald Reagan said to the men who climbed the cliffs at Normandy's Pointe du Hoc (quoting Stephen Spender): 'You are men who in your lives fought for life -- and left the vivid air signed with your honor.'
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story