Corner turned in Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a surprising opinion piece because it was written by the editors of the Washington Post. The Post has been anti-Bush and anti-war.

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war
Sunday, June 1, 2008

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

[bobblehead]

read that in the paper today, but I also thought of the possibility that the enemy is lying low, saving up resources for a big push in sept/oct to try and get a candidate elected who is promising to withdraw troops now. Influencing elections isn't an america only trick.

[Freak Out]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

[bobblehead]

n/m, you meant the POST as in the paper, not this post :P

my bad

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

I tend to think of the Post as the same as the NY Times, because they have a very similar mix of liberal and conservative columnists.

But perhaps you are correct that the Post editorial board is more conservative than I thought.

[Freak Out]

The Post is anti-war and anti-Bush?

I tend to think of the Post as the same as the NY Times, because they have a very similar mix of liberal and conservative columnists.

But perhaps you are correct that the Post editorial board is more conservative than I thought.

I never thought of the Post or it's editors as being "anti-war or Bush" but pretty even handed overall....

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight...but the outcome we wanted is never going to happen. An open and democratic Iraq that is a friend to Israel and an enemy of Iran is a fantasy.

[bobblehead]

we never wanted that, see my long post on the other thread about our huge base 12 minutes fly time from tehran. We accomplished our goal, now we are pretending we had other motives for being there.

[mraynrand]

If you guys are interested in the subject, you should read Michael Yon's book "Turning Point". If for no other reason than to read about Petraeus. Considering the list of people who have tried and failed at various counterinsurgency strategies and mideast peace efforts (even though his work is but a small part of this overall problem), the efforts of Petraeus are worth reading about. The guy's pretty amazing. Read the book to discover how he was shot through the chest by 'friendly fire' and how he 'punished' the offending soldier. With Petraeus moving up to handle the whole theater, it will be interesting to see how he'll handle problems like Waziristan - and how much latitude he'll be given...

[Freak Out]

we never wanted that, see my long post on the other thread about our huge base 12 minutes fly time from tehran. We accomplished our goal, now we are pretending we had other motives for being there.

The bases are no secret but the general public are mostly ignorant of them and the embassy that is being built.....but we cant just sit there in a hostile country in our bases forever...the Iraqi public has to accept the presence of them and I don't think that will ever happen to the extent that some believe.

[Freak Out]

If you guys are interested in the subject, you should read Michael Yon's book "Turning Point". If for no other reason than to read about Petraeus. Considering the list of people who have tried and failed at various counterinsurgency strategies and mideast peace efforts (even though his work is but a small part of this overall problem), the efforts of Petraeus are worth reading about. The guy's pretty amazing. Read the book to discover how he was shot through the chest by 'friendly fire' and how he 'punished' the offending soldier. With Petraeus moving up to handle the whole theater, it will be interesting to see how he'll handle problems like Waziristan - and how much latitude he'll be given...

Petraeus is a pretty amazing soldier.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight.

This is the opposite of what happenned. They broke our military into much smaller units and had them live and work, in conjunction with small Iraqi units, closely with the civilian population. This is the anti-insurgency stragegy that has succeeeded.


..but the outcome we wanted is never going to happen. An open and democratic Iraq that is a friend to Israel and an enemy of Iran is a fantasy.

Regarding Isreal, you might look to the negotiations ongoing between Syria and Israel and hope that there will be a cold peace with the Arab world before too long. But I don't think a pro-Israeli gov in Iraq was ever a goal.

Iran is more of a problem. Zero arab governments have diplomatic relations with Iraq, even our good "friends" Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Syria. They see Iraq as an emerging agent of Iran, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophescy.

Iran & Iraq are two peas in a pod. Iraq currently buys many of their consumer goods from IRan. We look at a map and see a border, but the people in Southern Iraq & Iran see people on the other side that they deal with regularly. The populations are moving back and forth to visit Shia religious sites.

I see a close relationship between Iraq & Iran as an unavoidable reality. And not necessarily a problem.

Ummm, I think we may have over-exaggerated the risk of U.S. troops endlessly fighting in Iraq. Democracy is emerging in Iraq, and the people will have a say. We don't keep troops in countries where we aren't wanted.

[bobblehead]

Iran & Iraq are two peas in a pod. Iraq currently buys many of their consumer goods from IRan. We look at a map and see a border, but the people in Southern Iraq & Iran see people on the other side that they deal with regularly. The populations are moving back and forth to visit Shia religious sites.

I see a close relationship between Iraq & Iran as an unavoidable reality. And not necessarily a problem.

Incidentally I think you are basically seeing what bush realized later and it played a big part in his decision to nation build. He realizes these populations are getting "to know each other" when what he thought before was saddam was working with iran to build a nuke (not thought, he was probably right...we'll never know). Now if he builds a democracy in iraq, it can't help but to bleed into iran because of the synergy that has been built between the populations, and thus hopefully will damage/destroy the hard line iran gov't.

[texaspackerbacker]

It was nice of the Washington Post to FINALLY notice.

Hell yeah, Freakout, the Washington Post is generally virulently left wing. This and an occasional other burst of good sense and normalcy by them is only out of desperation to avoid losing credibility even with the core of the Dem/libs. It's called getting ahead )or at least not too far behind) the curve.

Harlan, you haven't forgotten that wonderful war all through the 80s where Iraq and Iran did an absolutely splendid job of killing each other off? And it wasn't just a Sunni vs. Shi'ite thing. Are you also aware that Iranians are not even Arabs, and that such a distinction really means something to many on both sides?

[Freak Out]

When you drop as many bombs and use as many missiles as we have the last year you are bound to kill a bunch of militants and force a few to talk rather than fight.

This is the opposite of what happenned. They broke our military into much smaller units and had them live and work, in conjunction with small Iraqi units, closely with the civilian population. This is the anti-insurgency stragegy that has succeeeded.


We have used air power more and more the last six months to attack militants in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq rather than send troops in...it's been very effective. I read somewhere that we had fired more than 400 Hellfire missiles in one month alone in Sadr city. As far as the troops being stationed in smaller bases throughout the city/region it has been effective....but what about after we leave? Oh...thats right we'll be there for a hundred years. A huge portion of the people we were fighting have laid down their arms for now....for many reasons..but they can easily pick them right back up. This thing is far form over.

[Freak Out]

Hell yeah, Freakout, the Washington Post is generally virulently left wing. This and an occasional other burst of good sense and normalcy by them is only out of desperation to avoid losing credibility even with the core of the Dem/libs. It's called getting ahead )or at least not too far behind) the curve.


:lol: :lol:

Texas...you are one funny guy....or you've been hit in the head a few to many times.

[texaspackerbacker]

I see you are still well behind the curve, Freakout.

True, some of the bad guys could pick their arms back up. Many, though, would have a hard time because they are DEAD. Many others have been turned, and are now part of the solution.

The REAL turning of the corner has been by the new Iraqi government and military. And with our training and support, they are moving steadily toward being able to control the terrorist element. Thus, any living bad guys who tried to get back in the fight would stand a strong chance of getting slapped down hard by an Iraqi military that presumably wouldn't be near as soft on their enemies as we are.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We have used air power more and more the last six months to attack militants in Sadr City and elsewhere in Iraq rather than send troops in...it's been very effective. I read somewhere that we had fired more than 400 Hellfire missiles in one month alone in Sadr city. As far as the troops being stationed in smaller bases throughout the city/region it has been effective....but what about after we leave?

OK. I really hadn't noticed increased airpower use. The part about us leaving is the $64K question, I agree.

I am not troubled by the protests by Sadr supporters demanding that the U.S. get out. politics are good. An Iraq popular consensus on whether we should stay or leave is going to emerge, starting with elections next fall. Whatever the Iraqi people want is fine with me. (Up to the point that I don't want us to stay indefinitely in a violent country.)

[Freak Out]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD911E6CG0

Iraq cites problems with US security pact

By ROBERT H. REID – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's chief spokesman acknowledged differences with the United States over a proposed long-term security agreement and pledged on Sunday that the government will protect Iraqi sovereignty in ongoing talks with the Americans.

Australia became the latest member of the U.S.-led coalition to pull combat soldiers from Iraq, fulfilling an election promise that helped sweep Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to power in November.

Opposition has been growing in Iraq to the proposed security pact with the U.S., which will replace the current U.N. mandate and could provide for a long-term American military role in this country.

Much of the opposition comes from anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but statements critical of the deal have also been issued by mainstream Sunni and Shiite figures who fear it will undermine Iraqi sovereignty.

Chief government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi negotiators have a "vision and a draft that is different" from the Americans but that the talks, which began in March, were still in an early stage.

"There is great emphasis by the Iraqi government on fully preserving the sovereignty of Iraq in its lands, skies, waters and its internal and external relations," al-Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will not accept any article that infringes on sovereignty and does not guarantee Iraqi interests."

U.S. officials have refused to comment on the talks until they are complete but have insisted they are not seeking permanent bases. The agreement is to replace a U.N. mandate for U.S.-led forces that expires at the end of the year.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said they were hoping to finish the negotiations by July to allow time for the Iraqi parliament to sign off on the deal.

But Iraqi officials said last month that talks were unlikely to wrap up by July because of wide differences over several issues, including immunity enjoyed by U.S. troops from prosecution in Iraqi courts and rules governing U.S. military operations.

In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in operations against Al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni militants in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militias in southern Basra and in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad.

But the government appears to be following a policy of negotiating with militants — a strategy that calmed the situation in the three cities but probably enabled some hardliners to slip away to fight another day.

During a press conference Sunday, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, spoke out in favor of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, saying Iraq's forces still needed the support of the U.S.-led coalition.

"Our forces and capabilities haven't reached the level of self-sufficiency," Zebari said at a joint news conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. "We need this strategic security agreement ... for the time being. But this is not open-ended."

At the same time, the U.S. command is facing a dwindling coalition of allied countries that provide combat power in Iraq.

Australia, one of the first countries to commit troops to the Iraq war five years ago, ended its combat mission here Sunday and began sending its 550 combat troops home. A few hundred others will remain to train the Iraqis and protect Australian diplomats, officials said.

Rudd, the new prime minister, has said the Iraq mission had made Australia more of a target for terrorism and had promised to bring home his country's combat soldiers by the middle of this year.

"We have to praise the role of the Australian troops in stabilizing the security situation in the province through their checkpoints on the outskirts of the city," said Aziz Kadim Alway, the governor of Dhi Qar province where most of the troops were based.

The Iraqi government already has assumed security responsibilities for the Shiite-dominated province, which includes the volatile city of Nasiriyah. But the Australians had remained there in case the Iraqis needed help in maintaining order.

American troops will temporarily take over those responsibilities, the U.S. command said.

The Australians had "successfully accomplished their mission" and their contributions "assisted in the stabilization and development of Iraq," U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in a statement.

Britain transferred security responsibilities for the main southern province of Basra last year and pulled its 4,000 soldiers back to the Basra airport last year. Britain suspended plans to remove another 1,500 troops after fighting broke out in Basra in March.

The Poles have also announced they will withdraw some of their 900 soldiers from Iraq by the end of October.

Meannwhile, an American soldier was killed Sunday by an armor-piercing roadside bomb in northeastern Baghdad, the military said. No further details were released.

A car bomb exploded Sunday in a parking lot across the street from the Iranian Embassy, killing at least two civilians and wounding five people, including three embassy guards.

Elsewhere in the capital, a senior police official was wounded and a traffic cop was killed when a bomb stuck to the official's car exploded in a busy intersection.

Two civilians also were killed in separate roadside bombs Sunday near Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad. A policeman and a civilian were injured when a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Mosul, an official of the provincial operations center said.

The violence was reported by officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Two U.S. soldiers were injured when their helicopter crashed Sunday south of Baghdad, the military said. The military said the crash was being investigated but appeared to be due to mechanical failure.

Associated Press writers Sameer N. Yacoub and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.

[texaspackerbacker]

Not a helluva lot of substance in this article.

The whole remaining Australian contingent was just 550 troops--less than battalion strength. Big Deal! Australia was a good and valuable ally in Iraq for a while--until their version of the leftist media poisoned the electorate and got their form of a scumbag cut and run type in. No matter. The job is almost done anyway.

As for the Iraqis, they are now subject to the whims of the voters in their country. That's a good thing--actually a great thing called representative democracy/ If it serves their political purpose to seem to be standing up the the Americans, fine. We aren't interested in any long term diminishing of their sovreignty anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The job is almost done anyway.

Are you a cut and runner !? :shock:

The Iraq War has been a disaster. We now see, maybe, a Phoenix rising out of the ashes.

Its sad but inevitable that the war is such a political football. There should be no cause for gloating by any party, this is a tragedy.

I do agree with Tex's take that years from now people may look back and see this adventure as a success. It could actually transform the Middle East in a postive way.

Or not.

[texaspackerbacker]

The job is almost done anyway.

Are you a cut and runner !? :shock:

The Iraq War has been a disaster. We now see, maybe, a Phoenix rising out of the ashes.

Its sad but inevitable that the war is such a political football. There should be no cause for gloating by any party, this is a tragedy.

I do agree with Tex's take that years from now people may look back and see this adventure as a success. It could actually transform the Middle East in a postive way.

Or not.

A cut and runner would fantasize defeat, then push to get out to fulfill that fantasy. I am realistically analyzing the situation as decreasingly needing American troops in active roles to enable a positive conclusion.

Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of "is". I would ask you, Harlan, how do you define "has been"? The actual "war" was a great success; The first year or so of the nation-building was a decent success; Then, al Qaeda blew up the mosque at Samarra--kicking off its campaign of instigating sectarian violence, and people whined about "disaster"--if that's the "has been" time period you are talking about, yeah, maybe a limited disaster; Then, we switched over to the McCain/Petraeus/Bush surge, and there has been clear movement toward success. When I say "the job is almost done", I'm referring to the fact that American troops are increasingly turning over the high risk missions to the Iraqis. We should be mostly out without the risk of enemy resurgence in a year or two or three.

As for the war being a "political football" just who do you think made it that way? Never before in American history has the non-incumbent party basically behaved like an "enemy within" as the Democrats did when Bush reached super high levels of popularity after the military victory. THEY were the ones who showed unprecedented DISLOYALTY in politicizing Iraq and basically linking their own disgusting success to the success of the terrorist enemy.

[MJZiggy]

As for the war being a "political football" just who do you think made it that way? Never before in American history has the non-incumbent party basically behaved like an "enemy within" as the Democrats did when Bush reached super high levels of popularity after the military victory. THEY were the ones who showed unprecedented DISLOYALTY in politicizing Iraq and basically linking their own disgusting success to the success of the terrorist enemy.

They kept funding the damned thing, didn't they?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The actual "war" was a great success; The first year or so of the nation-building was a decent success; Then, al Qaeda blew up the mosque at Samarra--kicking off its campaign of instigating sectarian violence, and people whined about "disaster"--if that's the "has been" time period you are talking about

The invasion was a success, yes. but then 5 years of H-E-L-L. Rumsfeld had the notion that the invisible hand of freedom and capitalism would unleash postive energies. quite the opposite, it unleashed lawlessness that maximized the insurgency and tragedy to the Iraqi people.

I'm not going to argue with you whether the first two years of occupation were a success. If that is your idea of success, then you are beyond convincing.

And the Samarra bombing was a very negative event, but just an accelerant to trends already well underway. You present it as a bit of bad luck on the road of a working policy.

I keep my fingers crossed that the positive trends of the last year are taking root. We'll know when we start see large numbers of exiles returning - hasn't happened yet.

[texaspackerbacker]

Until the Samarra bombing and the aftermath--all of which were perpetrated or instigated by al Qaeda, sectarian hatred was generally overcome. All of the milestones were being met--elections, constitution, infrastructure, etc. The "invisible hand" you spoke of really was working--enthusiasm for voting, cooperation, resurgence of economic activity. Then, the "disaster" you talk about happened, courtesy of the terrorist enemy successfully bringing the sectarian hatred to the surface.

And how much of that do you think was the result of the "enemy within"--leftist politicians and media basically BEGGING the terrorist enemy for photo ops and headlines that could fuel their Bush-hate campaign?

There were basically four time periods: the war itself, the pre-Samarra success in nation-building, the "disaster", and the improvement resulting from the surge.

If you're willing to frame your "disaster" rhetoric that way, I agree. If not, you are out of line with historical fact.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Until the Samarra bombing and the aftermath--all of which were perpetrated or instigated by al Qaeda, sectarian hatred was generally overcome. All of the milestones were being met--elections, constitution, infrastructure, etc. The "invisible hand" you spoke of really was working--enthusiasm for voting, cooperation, resurgence of economic activity .

Are you insane or willfully ignorant?

I'm sorry, that came out a little harsh.

Iraq was a HELL HOLE at the time of the Samarra bombing.

The enthusiasm for the election was impressive, yes, followed by an explosion in violence PRIOR to the Samarra bombing. And the RESULT of the election was negative - deepening the split along ethnic lines.

The consitution that was signed was simply a disaster. The country has made some limitted political progress since DESPITE a consitution that TOTALLY screwed the Sunni, inflaming violence, and set the terms for the breakup of the country.

Maybe I am overstating the case, at least it was a start. But it was a very dissappointing document. In fact, that was the point where I thought "all is lost."

None of this matters. I'll join you in hoping for the best in the future, and seeing good opportunities.

[MJZiggy]

IIRC, didn't it take a few tries and a few missed deadlines to get that constitution through? On the flipside, they did manage to host the 2nd Working Party toward accession in the WTO...

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one. :lol:

[mraynrand]

Tex,

I think you underestimate the chaos present even before the Samarra bombing. I used to think that the press playing up crap like Abu Grahib had a big effect on the violence in Iraq, but it's probably less than I thought. Like Michael Yon reported, the abuses of Abu Grahib and the mismanagement of the interim government were well known to the Iraqis on the street - because they were in direct contact with the people who had been abused. That had a big effect on allowing insurgents to prosper. Bottom line is that top-down nation building wasn't working in Iraq, but Petraeus' focus on Bottom-up building seems to be doing the trick, thank God.

[bobblehead]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle guys, prebombing wasn't exactly nirvana, but post bombing is when it really went to shit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle guys, prebombing wasn't exactly nirvana, but post bombing is when it really went to shit.

The country was headed to hell in a hand basket with or without the Samara bombing. That event accelerated the violence.

Half of the success of late is due to a successful anti-insurgency strategy. The other half is that violence has a tendency to burn itself out. Most of the ethnically integrated territory has been cleansed. 3 Million people have been displaced. The combatants have been seperated.

[texaspackerbacker]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one. :lol:

Harlan, you're pulling the same weak shit that pathetic dumbasses like Hoosier and Tyrone try to get away with.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

All I said is verifiable/verified fact--much of it even by your sick leftist mainstream media--albeit grudgingly and under-reported.

[Harlan Huckleby]

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

I tried to end this nicely. Now you are forcing me act like a bitch:

You are so misinformed and uninformed that I don't care to discuss this issue with you further.

It's over. Scram. And you were a lousy lay.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All we can say for sure is one of us lives in a land of make believe.

Almost everything you say is factually incorrect, utter nonsense.

Unless I'm the crazy one. :lol:

Harlan, you're pulling the same weak shit that pathetic dumbasses like Hoosier and Tyrone try to get away with.

SPECIFICALLY, what do you see as "factually incorrect"?

All I said is verifiable/verified fact--much of it even by your sick leftist mainstream media--albeit grudgingly and under-reported.

the irony meter just exploded when you label others dumbasses.

This coming from a the man who refuses to learn what the money multiplier is.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, I gave you credit for NOT being the same type of idiot as the others I mentioned.

The FACTS are all lined up against you and your little fantasy of negativity; You can't even begin to counter them; So you wimp out and act like the other whiny little testicularly challenged imbeciles.

I ask you one more time, SPECIFICALLY WHAT among the facts I cited do you see as wrong?

Tyrone, you pathetic piece of crap, if have either the balls or brains to discuss any specifics of economics, bring it on--but you won't--because you don't.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

Everything you said here is factually incorrect. I don't have the interest or patience to correct it all. And what would be the point? You believe this version of recent history, it suits you. How could I disprove it? Root around the internet and find contradictory news accounts? You would just dismiss those as media misinformation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Harlan, I gave you credit for NOT being the same type of idiot as the others I mentioned.

The FACTS are all lined up against you and your little fantasy of negativity; You can't even begin to counter them; So you wimp out and act like the other whiny little testicularly challenged imbeciles.

I ask you one more time, SPECIFICALLY WHAT among the facts I cited do you see as wrong?

Tyrone, you pathetic piece of crap, if have either the balls or brains to discuss any specifics of economics, bring it on--but you won't--because you don't.

Well, what a surprise, it took about a month before you start spewing your nonsensical crap...and hurling invectives. Perhaps you need to readjust your meds.

Econ: How can one discuss it when you can't even get the fundamentals correct? When you can actually describe the MM correctly, then we might have something to discuss.

[bobblehead]

from wikipedia:

Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes's macroeconomic theories were a response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America.

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches :

a reduction in interest rates.
Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.[1]
---------------------

This is pretty much as I have argued all along...gov't spending on INFRASTRUCTURE has a positive effect on the overall economy and gov't revenues, but transfer of wealth (ie...tax one group hand to another) spending does not.

Gov't handouts spending thru deficit has a slight benefit in times of recession as well, but the long term cost of borrowing outweighs it as a normal policy.

If I look for it, I could find the hauser study which shows that no matter what the gov't sets tax rates at, they recieve 19.5% of GNP, but when taxes are high, GNP is depressed while when they are low it is stimulated.

So, to liberals, tax increases only harm the economy.

To compassionate conservatives, debt spending to hand to people who haven't produced is a very short lived positive, with long term negatives.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

Everything you said here is factually incorrect. I don't have the interest or patience to correct it all. And what would be the point? You believe this version of recent history, it suits you. How could I disprove it? Root around the internet and find contradictory news accounts? You would just dismiss those as media misinformation.

Harlan, you are simply wrong. These are not even opinions. They are the clear cut facts of recent history. I ask you AGAIN, what could you possibly disagree with--try a few SPECIFICS instead of this tired "it's all wrong" crap.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you seem to be believing the propaganda, demagoguery, and indeed out and out lies that your side put out about Iraq. The "HELL HOLE" you refer to before the Samarra bombing, etc. did NOT include any significant numbers of roadside bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, etc. There was no significant anti-government or anti-American violence. There was a ton of infrastructure building--schools, hospitals, etc.--good news of many kinds--that the God damned leftist media failed to report, in short, things were moving toward good. The ONLY semblance of a hell hole at all was the leftovers from Saddam and the effects of shock and awe and ground combat, and by a year after the fall of Saddam, much of that was cleaned up.

You refer to the badness of the constitution? That too is bullshit put out by YOUR side in this country. The Sunnis/Saddamists indeed were stripped of their out of proportion power and influence. There was proportional representation (with them as a 20-25% minority) and protections for the minorities, including the Sunnis.

The thing that inflamed the Sunnis was when al Qaeda committed atrocities on them in the name of the Shi'ites--supposedly in retaliation for the Samarra bombing, etc. which al Qaeda perpetrated and blamed on the Sunnis against the Shi'ites. Yeah, the hate was there already, but it didn't manifest itself as violence until after Samarra.

No problem on the harshness. Hell, I call you gullible and worse all the time.

Everything you said here is factually incorrect. I don't have the interest or patience to correct it all. And what would be the point? You believe this version of recent history, it suits you. How could I disprove it? Root around the internet and find contradictory news accounts? You would just dismiss those as media misinformation.

Harlan, you are simply wrong. These are not even opinions. They are the clear cut facts of recent history. I ask you AGAIN, what could you possibly disagree with--try a few SPECIFICS instead of this tired "it's all wrong" crap.

You have presented a view of recent history unsupported by everything I have read, everything I've heard from interviews of soldiers and journalists in the field. If these are "clear cut facts", provide references to supporting material.

[bobblehead]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

[Freak Out]

Got to love it baby.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html


US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

By Patrick Cockburn
Friday, 6 June 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.

The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.

The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held.

Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar.

Iraqi officials say the consequence of the American action was to lose Iraq the equivalent of $5bn. Given intense American pressure on a weak Iraqi government very dependent on US support, it is still probable that the agreement will go through with only cosmetic changes. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the immensely influential Shia cleric, could prevent the pact by issuing a fatwa against it but has so far failed to do so.

The Grand Ayatollah met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the main supporter of the Iraqi government, earlier this week and did not condemn the agreement or call for a referendum. He said, according to Mr Hakim, that it must guarantee Iraqi national sovereignty, be transparent, command a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Critics of the deal fear that the government will sign the agreement, and parliament approve it, in return for marginal concessions.

[Freak Out]

Turkey has joined the Axis powers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Turkey, Iran launch coordinated attacks on Kurds

By SUZAN FRASER – 19 hours ago

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkey and Iran have been carrying out coordinated strikes on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, a top Turkish general said Thursday in the first military confirmation of Iranian-Turkish cooperation in the fight against separatists there.

Gen. Ilker Basbug, Turkey's land forces commander, said the two countries have been sharing intelligence and planned more coordinated attacks in the future against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and PEJAK, the group's Iranian wing.

"We are sharing intelligence with Iran, we are talking, we are coordinating," CNN-Turk television quoted Basbug as telling reporters on the sidelines of a security conference in Istanbul.

"When they start an operation, we do, too," the general said. "They carry out an operation from the Iranian side of the border, we from the Turkish side."

The report did not give any details on the strikes or the targets. The general said no coordinated action had taken place in the past few months.

"We haven't done it in the past one or two months, but we can do it again," he said.

The PKK, which has bases in northern Iraq, has been fighting for self-rule in southeastern Turkey since 1984. Tens of thousands of people have died in the conflict. The main rebel camp is on Mount Qandil, which sits on the Iraqi-Iranian border.

In recent months, the Turkish military has launched several airstrikes on Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq. In February, it staged an eight-day, ground offensive.

Iran also has shelled northern Iraq. Tehran says rebels from PEJAK, the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, a group fighting for Kurdish rights in Iran, also have bases on Mount Qandil.

In northern Iraq, PKK spokesman Ahmad Danas told The Associated Press that the group knew about the contacts between Turkey and Iran. But he said the strikes failed to dislodge the rebels.

"The sites bombed in the Mount Qandil area and other sites inside Iraqi territory have no impact on us because we had already left those sites," he said. "Militants have movable sites in rocky mountains that cannot be targeted."

The United States has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization and supports Turkey's fight against the group by providing intelligence on the rebels. But it also has urged restraint on Turkey, fearing the fight could undermine efforts to calm Iraq.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after meeting with the Turkish foreign minister Thursday that the U.S., Turkey and Iraq are "on the same page about the desire to see the PKK not capable of carrying out attacks against Turkey."

"The PKK is an enemy of Iraq; it's an enemy of the United States; it's an enemy of Turkey; it's an enemy of the region," Rice said.

Associated Press writer Yahya Barzanji in Kirkuk, Iraq, contributed to this report.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

Tyrone, I haven't ever used the term "Money Multiplier". That was you saying that. If you think otherwise, show me where I said it.

I have always said merely "Multiplier" or "Keynesian Multiplier".

The thing you are talking about exists in the banking industry, but is a different thing altogether than what I have been talking about and really has no application outside of the banking industry.

The real Keynesian Multiplier, on the other hand, is the heart and soul of the economic philosophy behind tax cutting and government spending, deficit and otherwise. And it works.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I watched a good discussion with a reporter who just returned from 5 years in Iraq.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/04/2/a-conversation-with-richard-engel-of-nbc-news

I thought his assessment was generally positive. But he pointed out that the Iraqi government estimates that half a million barrells of oil are unaccounted for every day. That strikes me as insane, maybe he has the number wrong. But both corrupt government officials and militia groups are robbing the country blind. The pilfering is done both of crude oil, and of truck shipments of gasoline.

Well, I guess the money stays in country and helps the economy. But it feeds rogue elements.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

Because that isn't what the MM is...it is freaking formula. It is based on LOANS...not money being spent.

The simple money multiplier is 1/R, where R is the ratio of required reserves to deposits. In a more complex world, the money multiplier must allow for the possibility that individuals retain some proportion of their money in the form of cash rather than deposits. In addition, it must allow for the possibility that banks may wish to retain some reserves in excess of the required amount.

Tyrone, thank you for finally explaining what you were talking about. You are confusing the field of economics with the field of banking.

What Bobblehead found in Wikipedia above IS indeed the Keynesian Multiplier--what applies to the economic benefit of government spending and tax cuts. You are referring to the reserves banks are required to retain out of demand deposits when they lend money. I guess that is called "multiplier" too, but it is something else altogether.

No, you are wrong. Google Money Multiplier. My definition is correct. And, the original.

You have CONSTANTLY USED MONEY MULTIPLIER. Now, you are switching to multiplier.

But, if you are going to use the multiplier, you still have to use it correctly. You fail to factor in the marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....yet, WE NEVER HEAR YOU MENTION THIS.

Sorry, but econ is about MATH..it isn't about you stating that spending is good.

Your understanding and application of econ is rudimentary at best.

Tyrone, I haven't ever used the term "Money Multiplier". That was you saying that. If you think otherwise, show me where I said it.

I have always said merely "Multiplier" or "Keynesian Multiplier".

The thing you are talking about exists in the banking industry, but is a different thing altogether than what I have been talking about and really has no application outside of the banking industry.

The real Keynesian Multiplier, on the other hand, is the heart and soul of the economic philosophy behind tax cutting and government spending, deficit and otherwise. And it works.

Tex,

You have used the term on the jsonline board and here. I have neither the time nor inclination to lookup your mistakes. Bobble has tried to clue you in, but you resist actually learning.

Second, you as always, fail to address anything the REAL POINT..which is that the multiplier, even yours, follows strict math..and you dont' ever produce your formula to show that it will work. The multiplier can have negative effects..just as it can have positive effects. But, you just NEVER address the possibility of the negative effects.

Finally, the importance of the keynesian multiplier is on POLICY.

A central tenet of the multiplier is consumers spending and also..SAVING. Please tell us about how much people are saving from the gov't rebate?

Another central tenet is that the gov't outlay allows business to hire more people and PAY THEM...which then results in more consumer spending. Again, please show us some concrete numbers on the amount of new jobs created because of either rebate.

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

[bobblehead]

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

Keynes was wrong on the last part, the investors have no incentive to invest/create jobs if they can't reap the rewards. In a perfect world both ends benefit from the investment, not just one side, although I would concede that nowdays it is split closer to this:

Investor 50% workers (as a group) 25% gov't 25%

I would like to see it get to investor 40% workers 50% gov't 10%

mind you i'm spitballing numbers based on my perception of present conditions.

The only way to get to my numbers is to lower taxes, strain employment (ie drop unemployment to 2%) thus forcing the investors to fork over more to the employees. Simple supply and demand in the workforce.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

P.S. Keynes firmly believed that the rewards should go to the workers not the investors. Keynes also believed that fiscal policy should be aimed at the lower income segment..as they were more apt to spend it. NOT FAT CATS. Pretty much the opposite of what you believe.

Keynes was wrong on the last part, the investors have no incentive to invest/create jobs if they can't reap the rewards. In a perfect world both ends benefit from the investment, not just one side, although I would concede that nowdays it is split closer to this:

Investor 50% workers (as a group) 25% gov't 25%

I would like to see it get to investor 40% workers 50% gov't 10%

mind you i'm spitballing numbers based on my perception of present conditions.

The only way to get to my numbers is to lower taxes, strain employment (ie drop unemployment to 2%) thus forcing the investors to fork over more to the employees. Simple supply and demand in the workforce.

Bobble,

the point isn't the redistribution of wealth...which keynes falls into alignment with the redistrubitionists...it is that Tex doesn't fully understand or employ keynes correctly.

YOu can't do econ without math..it isn't just...gov't spending is good. It would be like me coming to you as a financial planner and you say to me...dont' worry about retiring at age 60...just save money...we know saving money will be good for you. Of course we know that..but, we have to know...what amount i need to live on, growth rate, inflation, etc.

You can't employ keynes..and then suddenly rebuke his other tenets. Economists like keynes have a system...and you have to use the whole thing. If you don't..well, then you don't get to spout off saying the multiplier works cause keynes said so..blah, blah, blah.

P.S. I'm definitely with you on rewards. But, i'm guessing my distribution would be a bit different than yours. But, the point remains that Tex doesn't understand this..or acknowledge that keynes view was the fiscal policy should be directed at lower income..not at benefiting the rich.

And, he can't, using keynes...show how jobs are created thru rebates.

[bobblehead]

I usually hate "compromising" with 2 ideas, but I have to in this case with you and tex. I'm probably closer to him on overall economic theory, but I have said all along and always will, that only infrastructure spending has a keynesian multiplier effect.

I also agree, the rebates won't help long term, but as a short term boost they will acheive the goal of smoothing out a rough time in the economy and save some jobs by slowing the bleeding. Thats not the same as creating jobs though. Long term, that money will not pay for itself and its only a viable strategy if you pay it back later so its available again when you need it. In my lifetime, the only politician that has tried to balance a budget and cut spending is newt gingrich.

I disagree that keynes is a redistributionist, he is more of an advocate of a strong middle class. I don't think he ever wanted to play robin hood as it seems you represented. I am not so much rejecting his philosophy as I think you aren't portraying it accurately. As I said earlier, low unemployment, low taxes, its a winner everytime, and I believe THAT is how keynes viewed "helping" the lower class.

I'm not sure if tex understands it or not, I am sure he has his own take on it that I disagree with. He and I both agree that low taxes and a strong economy trump redistribution every time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I usually hate "compromising" with 2 ideas, but I have to in this case with you and tex. I'm probably closer to him on overall economic theory, but I have said all along and always will, that only infrastructure spending has a keynesian multiplier effect.

I also agree, the rebates won't help long term, but as a short term boost they will acheive the goal of smoothing out a rough time in the economy and save some jobs by slowing the bleeding. Thats not the same as creating jobs though. Long term, that money will not pay for itself and its only a viable strategy if you pay it back later so its available again when you need it. In my lifetime, the only politician that has tried to balance a budget and cut spending is newt gingrich.

I disagree that keynes is a redistributionist, he is more of an advocate of a strong middle class. I don't think he ever wanted to play robin hood as it seems you represented. I am not so much rejecting his philosophy as I think you aren't portraying it accurately. As I said earlier, low unemployment, low taxes, its a winner everytime, and I believe THAT is how keynes viewed "helping" the lower class.

I'm not sure if tex understands it or not, I am sure he has his own take on it that I disagree with. He and I both agree that low taxes and a strong economy trump redistribution every time.

Bobble,

The point is whether i agree with tex or not, it is correctly using keynes..which he isn't. YOu just can't say spending is good without taking into consideration other factors. You just can't make a blanket statement that spending is good...it can also be bad.

Tex doesn't do the math for marginal propensity to consume and marginal propensity to import. Where is your formula. The multiplier can work in reverse as well....after the spending..it can accelerate the problem.

My issue is simply saying spending is good.

I never said he was a redistributionist...just that he aligns or associates himself. He wrote about the hydro plant..saying that the workers should get the money over the investors. In Tex's world, that is redistibution.

Keyne's was also in favor of fiscal policy that favored the poor...as they are apt to spend the money. Tex certainly doesn't favor that...he would favor Reagan's trickle down.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I agree with you mostly. I still disagree with the hydroplant example. How are you gonna get investors if they don't benefit. However making the price of employees high (ie. wages) high isn't redistributionist in my book. However giving them the money instead of investors IS unrealistic. We both agree that the spread should be fair to both sides, we just disagree on the shades of "fair".

I'm not fully clear on fiscal policy that favors the poor, I could argue that I'm from that camp, you would probably disagree.

I agree simply spending money isn't good, I've been clear on that over and over.

Our disagreements seem to be minimal on this, I'm not entirely sure how you have aligned yourself with the left given your understanding of how things work....you're an enigma. (unless social issues are more important to you, then it makes sense, for me, its just that fiscal issues come first)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok, I agree with you mostly. I still disagree with the hydroplant example. How are you gonna get investors if they don't benefit. However making the price of employees high (ie. wages) high isn't redistributionist in my book. However giving them the money instead of investors IS unrealistic. We both agree that the spread should be fair to both sides, we just disagree on the shades of "fair".

I'm not fully clear on fiscal policy that favors the poor, I could argue that I'm from that camp, you would probably disagree.

I agree simply spending money isn't good, I've been clear on that over and over.

Our disagreements seem to be minimal on this, I'm not entirely sure how you have aligned yourself with the left given your understanding of how things work....you're an enigma. (unless social issues are more important to you, then it makes sense, for me, its just that fiscal issues come first)

Ok. I'm not giving you my position. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity coming from Tex.

Keyes..again, i'm not arguing in his favor..or that his position is right..just that if you are going to use Keynes as tex does then you have to understand his whole econ system. Otherwise you are just cherry picking facts to support his position.

As for my positions...when did i ever label myself. I've presented my thoughts. I have many. I am definitely on the liberal side for social issues...and that is why i can't vote for a the republican party of today. I had less issues with the party of Nixon and reagan.

As for econ issues...i'm not saying keynes is right..or what i believe. Econ is as much an art is it is science. I could present arguments in favor of keynes, yet i can point out what other economists see as problems.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you are a God damned liar and a know-noting who won't admit that you know nothing. You whine like the little piss ant you are, and then when challenged to produce evidence, you can't/won't/don't because there is none.

But what the hell. This is America. There's freedom of speech even for scumbags like you.

The supreme irony, Bobblehead, as I'm sure you'll agree, is that these numbskulls of the left can't even comprehend that by most standards, what I have been expressing is closer to the liberalism they profess--sincerely in some cases, demagogically in others, than your positions.

[bobblehead]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, that's not what he said.

[bobblehead]

Not just not what I said, not even close. I am in complete agreement that raising taxes hurts the economy and thus tax revenues. I was simply saying spending by transfer of wealth doesn't work because of just that....we are in complete agreement. I was merely covering all sides of the arguement.

I then went on to address where we disagree which is borrowing money, or printing money to hand out, and how this can not possibly make itself up in tax revenues because it has no keynsian multiplier effect because it is not infrastructure. It will have negative effects of paying it back eventually or devaluing the dollar.

If it did make it up by a multiplier effect why not just borrow or print 800 Bazillion dollars and hand it out, then the gov't would get 900 bazillion dollars of tax revenue for a net gain? The reason is because borrowing/printing money DOES have negative effects. Some positive, but as a long term strategy negative will outweigh it.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

Economically speaking, that may be true.

I like to think we are pretty much like minded on defense, foreign policy, security, most morality issues, etc. Even on "welfare" type spending, I'm kinda lukewarm about it. I can see you point about the lack of fairness of it, etc. I'm just saying, given my interpretation of Keynesian Economics and the Multiplier, we can afford it WITHOUT any sacrifice by the "haves", so why not? To leave the poor wallow in poverty just out of spite or because they deserve to be poor, that would kinda lower us to the class envy crap practiced by liberals.

[texaspackerbacker]

Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Bobblehead. Is this not exactly the description I have given of the Multiplier--several times now? Keynes may have limited the effect to spending on "infrastructure", but give me one good reason why the same should not apply to ANY money spent domestically--which, of course, becomes SOMEBODY'S income. The same, of course, applies to tax cutting, which also leaves more money in the hands of consumers and investors.

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.

__________________________________________________ __________________

Ziggy, I direct you to the second paragraph of his response--the one about taxing the rich and changing the owner, etc. That IS what he said.

I'm carrying the load for you libs on this welfare spending issue--and our of pure contrariness, you STILL whine.

[bobblehead]

I would say on taxes you side with me, on most of the rest you side with them.

Economically speaking, that may be true.

I like to think we are pretty much like minded on defense, foreign policy, security, most morality issues, etc. Even on "welfare" type spending, I'm kinda lukewarm about it. I can see you point about the lack of fairness of it, etc. I'm just saying, given my interpretation of Keynesian Economics and the Multiplier, we can afford it WITHOUT any sacrifice by the "haves", so why not? To leave the poor wallow in poverty just out of spite or because they deserve to be poor, that would kinda lower us to the class envy crap practiced by liberals.

Yes economically. I may be a bit different with you on security as I think the patriot act was a mess and incursion of our freedoms. Morally I don't care what people do, don't ask me to pay for it, I think you are on the same page, although I'm not religous, I'm sick of the left mocking those who are as though they know the universal truth to some secret.

I'm not for letting the poor wallow in poverty, I think the gingrich idea of 2 years on welfare, 5 years lifetime is pretty fair. But I've been very clear that to pay them to sit home forever has a negative effect on the economy as that money has to come from somewhere and you and I agree taxing the rich isn't a good place to try and get it. My arguement has very little to do with lack of fairness in all honesty, but lack of fairness is a legitimate arguement (when it comes to tax and spend).

[texaspackerbacker]

Not just not what I said, not even close. I am in complete agreement that raising taxes hurts the economy and thus tax revenues. I was simply saying spending by transfer of wealth doesn't work because of just that....we are in complete agreement. I was merely covering all sides of the arguement.

I then went on to address where we disagree which is borrowing money, or printing money to hand out, and how this can not possibly make itself up in tax revenues because it has no keynsian multiplier effect because it is not infrastructure. It will have negative effects of paying it back eventually or devaluing the dollar.

If it did make it up by a multiplier effect why not just borrow or print 800 Bazillion dollars and hand it out, then the gov't would get 900 bazillion dollars of tax revenue for a net gain? The reason is because borrowing/printing money DOES have negative effects. Some positive, but as a long term strategy negative will outweigh it.

If--and ONLY if--you make the assumption that the Multiplier /Effect doesn't work for anything except infrastructure type spending, yes. but I ask you again, CAN YOU CITE ONE VALID REASON--not merely that Keynes didn't extend it beyond the infrastructure--WHY THE MULTIPLEIR SHOULDN'T WORK PERFECTLY WELL FOR ANY KIND OF SPENDING--assuming the spending is done within this country?

[bobblehead]

I have made my arguements, you are free to accept or reject them.

Taxing to get the money...well, we agree.

Borrowing, reduces capital in the real world for the producers to access, no amount of multiplier will make up for borrowing and giving away long term. The positive effect may offset some of the cost, but not all of it.

Printing, deflates the dollar and is inflationary.

[MJZiggy]

I guess first of all because keynes DID limit his arguement to infrastructure. Secondly I have made my own point several times, but here goes again.

If you tax the rich to give to the poor you simply change the owner AND stifle the economy by taking the money several steps away from the producer/job provider. It could get spent by the original owner just as quickly and in a more positive manner.

If you borrow the money to give to the poor it still has a negative effect. There is no way the effect of the velocity of money(which is what you describe) can make itself up in tax revenues, it can only stimulate a sluggish economy short term to be made up later when the economy is strong. It can also have negative effects on inflation, capital available, and/or strength of the dollar (if we print to repay).

Furthermore, keynes not only limited it to infrastructure, but also limited it to getting out of depression/recession. Both points I have made over and over. Remember, I'm not dismissing what you say out of hand, I'm simply saying that it is limited to these two uses/occasions.

You keep making the argument--the tired old argument made by the Dem/libs--that you need to RAISE TAXES to pay for spending. You do NOT. If you do "raise taxes on the rich" to "pay for" spending programs for the poor, then yeah, it's a wash or worse--because of the tax increases. That was the case from the LBJ era to the Jimmy Carter era, and we all know what kind of a mess that left the country in.

Kennedy knew that you had to CUT taxes, even though he was horrendously liberal otherwise. Reagan, as some libs in here are so quick to point out, did not shirk from spending what was needed to rebuild the Carter-decimated military and still achieved huge economic success with his ttax cutting.

Your infrastructure only argument doesn't hold water unless you make the flawed assumption you keep making--tax increases to "pay for" the spending. Nope. It pays for itself, courtesy of the Multiplier.[/quote]

__________________________________________________ __________________

Ziggy, I direct you to the second paragraph of his response--the one about taxing the rich and changing the owner, etc. That IS what he said.

I'm carrying the load for you libs on this welfare spending issue--and our of pure contrariness, you STILL whine.[/quote]

He said IF you tax the rich to give to the poor...he wasn't suggesting that that's what they SHOULD do.

And it depends on what you're talking about as far as welfare spending. I don't think even the most liberal are talking about just handing checks to people as many suggest (unless you're talking about simple unemployment benefits), but giving them a hand with the process of bettering themselves and making them more self-sufficient.

[texaspackerbacker]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

[MJZiggy]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

I think we agree with each other but for different reasons. You say spend the money and it will come back, I'm saying lose some useless pork projects and you'll find the money through greater government efficiency (oxymoron?). This is my problem with lobbyists and special interests. Our lawmakers need to use common sense when making decisions, not feel bound by people who gave them money.

[Freak Out]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

The role of the US in Iraq is high on the agenda, with Tehran concerned about a treaty under discussion on the terms of the US military's future in Iraq.

Iran's alleged backing for militants in Iraq was also expected to be discussed.

'Peace and security'

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Iranian state-run media quoted Mr Maliki as saying after late-night talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

In his talks with Mr Ahmadinejad, Iranian media quoted Mr Maliki as saying: "A stable Iraq will be a benefit to the security of the region and the world."

Mr Ahmadinejad told Mr Maliki: "Iraq's neighbours have more responsibility to help the country to establish peace and security."

Without referring directly to the US-Iraqi deal, Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying: "Iraq must reach a certain level of stability so that its enemies are not able to impose their influence."

A statement from Mr Maliki's office in Baghdad said economic and trade issues were high on the agenda.

"Iraq is looking forward to Iranian companies taking part in developing its infrastructure," Mr Maliki is quoted as saying.

The BBC's John Leyne, in Tehran, says Iran has made no secret of its opposition to the current negotiations going on between Iraq and the US, which are aimed at regulating the presence of US forces in the country after their UN mandate expires at the end of 2008.

The US-Iraqi talks, which are seeking to reach agreement by the end of July, have run into problems over issues related to Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi prime minister was also expected to raise allegations of Iranian support for Shia militants in Iraq.

Shia militiamen fought bitter battles with US and Iraqi government forces between March and May.

Mr Maliki is on his third visit to Iran since taking office in June 2005.

Government sources say Iraqi security officials with the delegation will be showing the Iranians evidence of their alleged support for the militias, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad reports.

Iran has always denied any involvement, but officials say Mr Maliki will once again urge Tehran to support the Baghdad government and stop secretly backing militias.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

are you laughing at the article you posted, some previous clowns, or just a luntatic outburst? I guess B but I don't want to read a thread about economics.


Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

This sounds like a good deal. Maybe recent success in Basra and elsewhere is because Iran is already backing off trouble making.

[bobblehead]

DUH!, Ziggy. Of course he's not advocating that. He's a conservative--some would say even more so than I am.

His point was that IF--like you said--you use government spending in some form for the poor, you have to tax the rich to do it. I'm saying "no you don't" need to tax the rich/raise taxes/whatever to do so.

Why? Because injecting that money, even if it goes to the poor instead of merely for "infrastructure", pays for itself, thanks to the Multiplier Effect, with economic growth, greater income, and ultimately more tax revenue due to that greater income--just like when you cut taxes. It's a beautiful system, and it works.

I think we agree with each other but for different reasons. You say spend the money and it will come back, I'm saying lose some useless pork projects and you'll find the money through greater government efficiency (oxymoron?). This is my problem with lobbyists and special interests. Our lawmakers need to use common sense when making decisions, not feel bound by people who gave them money.

As much as I hate pork spending ziggy, its really a very small % of the gov't budget. Now, things like the farm bill that was a special interests delight and a monster spending bill is a real issue. The lawmakers we keep electing are slaves to the lobbyists, thats just the way it is, and unless voters wise up, actually pay attention instead of saying "hey, I know that name" and pulling the lever it isn't going to change.

Our gov't puts in a program, lets it get bloated and wasteful then cuts the benefit. Just last night I heard John McCain say that seniors who can afford their own prescription drugs should be expected to pay for them....I never heard that in the original plan. So now the little old lady who worked hard and saved money until she was 65 so she could enjoy retirement is going to have to pay for drugs that the person who pissed their money away will get for free....yea, thats moral and just.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, the farm bill was the particular pork chop I had in mind...

And I wouldn't worry too much about that prescription clause. The seniors will completely eviscerate him on it until he drops it and if he doesn't he will not be elected. They are a powerful and ornery bunch.

[bobblehead]

Actually, the farm bill was the particular pork chop I had in mind...

And I wouldn't worry too much about that prescription clause. The seniors will completely eviscerate him on it until he drops it and if he doesn't he will not be elected. They are a powerful and ornery bunch.

Very true on the seniors point. I guess I think of pork as earmarks that are kind of hidden in there, but yes the farm bill is indeed a huge fat pork chop. We have a few of those. I would even say if we aren't going to let the oil companies explore and drill for oil (we should though) we could eliminate their tax breaks to do so.

We are reaching a tipping point though where a huge amount of the budget is gov't health programs (19%), SS(21%), defense(21%), Interest on debt(9%), and benefits for retired federal employees and veterans(6%).

These are all locked in costs, there isn't that much room to cut in other areas really. Moreover these costs are going to get worse as a %, unless the gov't cuts into them. Basically right now 76% of the budget can't be touched without breaking promises or sacrificing defense. I view this as not so good. I view this as saying we can't add more federal programs like national healthcare. I view this as we need to make some fundamental changes.

Just in case anyone wants a source: http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not sure, Ziggy, why you think "seniors" are so dead set against the farm bill. A lot of those seniors actually are retired farmers or first generation off the farm.

In any case, "pork" projects (tell me you aren't taking "pork" literally, Ziggy) and the farm bill in particular, just like liberal social spending, just like infrastructure spending, just like defense spending, just like salaries of government bureaucrats, just like ANY government spending in this country are subject to the beauty of the Multiplier, and thus, serve as stimulus for economic growth in a geometric way.

On to the Iraq/Iran article, the goodness or badness of this whole situation depends on the trustworthiness of the America-installed Iraqi government and of al Maliki in particular. Undoubtedly the Bush-hating left will characterize these talks as our Iraqi surrogates selling us out to the Iranian enemy. It could just as well be construed as al Maliki extracting a promise from Iran of not stirring up anti-government trouble in Iraq. Time will tell how things turn out, but I'm fairly confident that if Iran needs to be attacked, we either won't need to use Iraq as a staging area or else, we will go ahead and use it anyway no matter what al Maliki pledges to Iran.

The other side of the coin--Iran pledging to stop stirring up trouble in Iraq--probably won't happen either, but getting them to say they will stop at least can't hurt.

[MJZiggy]

I NEVER said seniors were against the farm bill. I said that if McCain thinks he can require them to pay for their own prescriptions, he's dead in the water.

[texaspackerbacker]

I NEVER said seniors were against the farm bill. I said that if McCain thinks he can require them to pay for their own prescriptions, he's dead in the water.

Have I missed some statement by McCain that he wants Bush's prescription program for seniors to be terminated?

Actually, by some standards, I'm a senior--age 61. I don't have any insurance--I had my wife take me off her medical coverage to cut the premium from $109 down to $35 every two weeks. Actually, I could drive 25 miles to the VA Hospital, wait in line several hours, and get an $8 co-pay for my two blood pressure prescriptions. Instead, though, I go to Wal Mart, wait in a shorter line, and get a month worth of each prescription for $4. ANYBODY can partake of the Wal Mart Plan--no premium or anything like that, and a very large and ever-increasing number of meds are included in the plan.

So who needs prescription coverage anyway?

[MJZiggy]

My dad's latest prescription is $135 a month at Wal-Mart...

[bobblehead]

She was referring to my post of this:

Just last night I heard John McCain say that seniors who can afford their own prescription drugs should be expected to pay for them....I never heard that in the original plan. So now the little old lady who worked hard and saved money until she was 65 so she could enjoy retirement is going to have to pay for drugs that the person who pissed their money away will get for free....yea, thats moral and just.

He is advocating means testing, now that they got their little socialist plan in place. Her first sentence was in response to the pork bill, the second in response to that.

[Freak Out]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

are you laughing at the article you posted, some previous clowns, or just a luntatic outburst? I guess B but I don't want to read a thread about economics.


Iraqi PM assures Iran on security

Iraq will not allow its territory to be used to attack Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said during a visit to Tehran.

Mr Maliki met the foreign minister and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who pledged to help with Iraq's security.

This sounds like a good deal. Maybe recent success in Basra and elsewhere is because Iran is already backing off trouble making.

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

[texaspackerbacker]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

That is a very realistic and fair and balanced post, Harlan.

While we easily COULD go against Turkey or Iraq or whoever, we very likely WOULD NOT--unless it was really necessary. As Iraq proved when Turkey got skiddish, there's more than one way to skin a Muslim cat.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia both hate and fear Iran; There is a long and fairly open Afghan/Iran border; And there are several decently cooperative former Soviet republics also bordering Iran. And that's not even mentioning long range aier and naval power, as well as our good and valuable ally, Israel, which just might do the job all by themselves.

[Freak Out]

Does Malaki actually believe he could stop the USA from attacking Iran from Iraqi soil if he wanted to? Ha ha...it's politics pure and simple. He can't get the USA to stop killing his own citizens let alone someone else's.

You are being short-sighted. Iraq is going to be a truly independent country in a few years, U.S bases or not.

The United States has bases in Turkey. Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to use its ports or territory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. WE ARE NOT AN IMPERIALIST POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The War in Iraq has demonstrated the real limits of our power. We never controlled Saudi Arabia when we had bases there.

There's a big political fight going on in Iraq right now over the Iraqi-U.S. negotiations over a future U.S. presence. THAT IS A GOOD & HEALTHY SIGN! There is genuine democracy at work. One of Maliki's allies, the last prime minister of Iraq, Jalawi or whatever is name is, was kicked out of the party yesterday over his organizing against the negotiations He's forming a new Shitte political party opposed to U.S. bases. And of course Sadir's people have been protesting.

If the U.S. maintains bases in Iraq, it will be because a majority of the Iraqi people want them. And a political opposition that expresses itself is more likely to respect any agreement. The Iraqi elections scheduled for next October are perfectly timed. Although they are provincial elections, support of future U.S. bases is a central issue.

BTW, I think it is outrageous that Bush is pursuing this negotiation in the final months of his term. And he refuses to seek congressional approval of the agreement. Terrible. Obviously this is a long term commitment that shouldn't be made by a lame duck.

Short sighted? I guess I should have emphasized that he is not the one in control of that aspect of his nations sovereignty NOW. In a year or two ...maybe. I completely agree that Dubya damn well better seek Congressional approval. But it sounds like he will not....and by the way...we never invaded Turkey.

[texaspackerbacker]

What we did for Turkey was SAVE THEM from the horrors of Communism during the Cold War. As a result, we ended up with some bases there. In general, Turkey has been a fairly good loyal ally. They got a little bit chicken that Saddam would survive and come after them if they let us launch attacks from their country. I can forgive them for that. Their government was a representative democracy, after all, and had to worry about public opinion.

Fort Hood's own 4th Infantry Division simply got back on their ships and sailed to Kuwait, coming up from the south. The 82d and 101st Airborne handled the north just fine without Turkey's help.

So if Iran needs to be attacked, likely Bush will do what needs to be done and get Congress's blessing after the fact. I suspect the election result may just have something to do with it too. If McCain wins, Bush likely would rely on him to bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran. If Obama wins, some pre-emption may be in order--Bush's parting gift to America--taking out Iranian nukes. Or maybe Israel will just take care of business themselves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

and by the way...we never invaded Turkey.

I got a lot out of this conversation:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/04/2/a-conversation-with-richard-engel-of-nbc-news

I take by your remark that there is much ill-will towards the U.S. in Iraq.

The reporter in the above converstion generalized Iraqi feelings this way: Most Iraqis greeted the American invasion with great joy. He claims that a large majority of Iraqis, surprisingly including Sunni, held a very positive view of the toppling of Sadam Hussein.

Deep resentment built during the lawless years where criminal gangs and violent militias held sway.

Now feelings are mixed, according to the reporter.

Its possible that the Iraqi people will want us, the infidels, off of Muslim land. But that's not at all clear. And I doubt hard feelings over the war will play any role.

[Freak Out]

U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 09, 2008 08:20:15 PM

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."

"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.

"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.

The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."

Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.

But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is insteadn withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.

U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."

"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Harlan Huckleby]

Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Why in hell should we take the option of permanent bases off the table?

Permanent bases might very well be in our interest. John McCain has this one exactly right - if we reach a state of peace where our troops are not being attacked, we may wish to keep bases in Iraq permanently. I don't know whether this is likely or possible, but why the fuck would Barack Obama implicitly identify the United States an an unwelcome occupier?

Mr. Obama, how would bases in Iraq be different from our bases in the Arab Gulf States? Do you wish to close those down too? Have you thought this through?


"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said.

This guy is very sensible. It makes no sense for either Iraq or the United States to be pushing this agreement so hard right now. Obviously Bush has unwisely chosen to ram it through while he still has some control. If they can just postpone with an extension, that is the best move.

I hope mutual trust grows between Iraq & U.S. There may be a better opportunity to sign such a long-term deal in a couple years.

I like every thing I hear from the Iraqis. It is good that they are standing up as a truly independent country. If they want us to leave, I am TOTALLY cool with that. My guess is we can, in time, find a mutually beneficial agreement on keeping bases there that Iraq finances 100%. Leaving completely also has a lot of appeal. Let it play out.

[oregonpackfan]

The United States would "only" maintain 58 permanent bases in Iraq!? Who cares what the Iraqis want for their own country? It's in our best interest to continually occupy that country for the distant future.

Heck, why not just annex Iraq as America's 51st state? :roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

You are speaking in bumper sticker language, and very outdated language at that. There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

[texaspackerbacker]

You know what is really abominable? That this America-hating bastard, Obama, would not even consider the American position and interests here, and would automatically come out AGAINST America. And this is the sick piece of shit that many people including some idiots in this forum want to become president.

I think what will come out of this is a compromise only slightly less than what we are originally stating--with the more responsible elements of Iraqi leadership.

Incidentally, Status of Forces Agreements based on all previous contexts fall way short of treaties, hence requiring no Congressional advice and consent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Incidentally, Status of Forces Agreements based on all previous contexts fall way short of treaties, hence requiring no Congressional advice and consent.

The question is not whether Bush is acting within the technicalities of the law, but if he is acting wisely. Arguably, Bush didn't need that authorization vote from Congress before invading Iraq, either.

[oregonpackfan]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

Harlan,

With the latest Bush proposal, there are several features which many Iraqis find upsetting:

1. creation of 58 permanent bases in Iraq for American troops.

2. all of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000' would be under control of US forces.

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Iraqis need to assume ownership of their own country. Those three areas above would hinder, not help, that process.

[HarveyWallbangers]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oregon, it is clear now that NOTHING will happen without the support of the Iraqi people.

There are exciting, encouraging things happening in Iraq on the poltical front. And it may lead to a U.S. withdrawal. Or not.

Harlan,

With the latest Bush proposal, there are several features which many Iraqis find upsetting:

1. creation of 58 permanent bases in Iraq for American troops.

2. all of Iraqi airspace up to 30,000' would be under control of US forces.

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Iraqis need to assume ownership of their own country. Those three areas above would hinder, not help, that process.

It's funny, I heard an Iraqi government offical complaining about anti-U.S. parties in Iraq fear-mongering with leaked details of the ongoing negotiation. I won't go the full Tex route and refer to "anti-U.S. parties" in our country playing the same game, but the symetry is amusing.

Your or my analysis of the factors you cite above truly do not matter. They are just bargaining positions on the table, if they are even accurate. The Iraqi government is fully capable of negotiating in their own interests.

The United States has decreasing leverage over Iraq, that is as it should be. Iraq is sitting in the middle of a power struggle between the U.S. and Iran, so they have options. It's clear to me that the current Iraq government wants to continue close relations with the U.S. Good! And there will be plenty of elections upcoming, starting with next October, where the Government stance will be tested with the Iraqi people. There is a healthy opposition and debate going on in Iraq.

If the Iraqi people want us to leave, or we can't come to mutually acceptable terms, that is fine. It shows they have confidence in their own survivial. Good. We have other bases in the Persian Gulf, we'll be OK.

WE ARE WINNING THE POLITICAL BATTLE IN IRAQ!!!!!!! It looked like civil war two years ago.

I am thrilled. I was very downbeat 2005-2007 on Iraq, I thought a timetable for withdrawal was our least bad option. But things have turned, and dramatically so.

REAL democracy is happening before our very eyes. Why so glum, chum?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging.

Tyrone, a little reality check. Freedom House rates the judicial system in Iraq as one of the worst in the world. Iraq is inching towards Democracy, but they have a long way to go.

No way in hell would we allow our soldiers to fall under their criminal system.

If there is no face-saving way to solve this problem, then we would just have to speed our exit from the country.

The negotiatons underway now are premature anyway, they aren't going to sign any longterm deals for a couple years, if ever.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging.

Tyrone, a little reality check. Freedom House rates the judicial system in Iraq as one of the worst in the world. Iraq is inching towards Democracy, but they have a long way to go.

No way in hell would we allow our soldiers to fall under their criminal system.

If there is no face-saving way to solve this problem, then we would just have to speed our exit from the country.

The negotiatons underway now are premature anyway, they aren't going to sign any longterm deals for a couple years, if ever.

Harlan,

Super. But, you fail to address the major issue of private contractors..which we all know are a private army over there. Blackwater "troops" have committed crimes and there is no one that can touch them.

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Jeez, it feels great to be like tex.

[Harlan Huckleby]

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

You've defined them as guilty criminals, which makes everything clearcut. But the rub is the justice system that determines their guilt or innocence.

You make a good argument, though, it's a hell of dilemma. The answer will have to be a face-saving compromise, not sure how they will construct it. Perhaps some appeals process with U.S. particiapation. Or maybe it is unbridgable and will be a factor that pushes us to withdraw.

Do you hope that the issue is resolved through creative negotiation? Or would you prefer that it remain an intractable problem that pressures the U.S. to withdraw?

[Freak Out]

You just have to love how some information gets handled.

Secret documents left on train

Published: Wednesday, 11 June 2008, 6:24PM

Secret Whitehall documents relating to al-Qaeda and Iraq were left on a train in London, it has emerged.

The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the Metropolitan Police has launched an inquiry into the incident, which occurred on Tuesday.

It is understood that the two documents - both marked "Secret" - relate to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and the security situation in Iraq.

A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said: "Two documents which are marked as 'Secret' were left on a train and have subsequently been handed to the BBC.

"There has been a security breach, the Metropolitan Police are carrying out an investigation."

The spokesman said the papers had been in the possession of a senior intelligence officer based in the Cabinet Office.

Asked how many people would have had access to the papers, he said: "'Secret' is a high classification so they would have had limited circulation."

The incident is the latest in a series of embarrassing losses of Government information, including the disappearance of personal details of millions of child benefit recipients on a disc sent through the post.

BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said the documents were left in an orange cardboard envelope on a train from London Waterloo to Surrey by a "very senior intelligence official" working in the Cabinet Office.

Mr Gardner said the envelope was picked up by a passenger, who found it contained a seven-page document setting out the latest Government assessment on the Islamist terror network al-Qaeda, along with a "top secret and in some cases damning" assessment of Iraq's security forces.

The al-Qaeda document, commissioned jointly by the Foreign Office and Home Office, was classified "UK top secret", he said. It was so sensitive that each page was numbered and marked "For UK, US, Canadian and Australian eyes only".

The second document, on Iraq, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence.

© Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

[Freak Out]

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While President George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

P.S. Maybe the soldiers shouldn't commit crimes. should i feel bad for them if they are treated less than fairly by any court systems? THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

You've defined them as guilty criminals, which makes everything clearcut. But the rub is the justice system that determines their guilt or innocence.

You make a good argument, though, it's a hell of dilemma. The answer will have to be a face-saving compromise, not sure how they will construct it. Perhaps some appeals process with U.S. particiapation. Or maybe it is unbridgable and will be a factor that pushes us to withdraw.

Do you hope that the issue is resolved through creative negotiation? Or would you prefer that it remain an intractable problem that pressures the U.S. to withdraw?

Well, according to the Rats on this forum...being arrested means you musta done something. So, they are guilty...we are just determing how guilty...wow, it feels GREAT being like Tex.

I acknowledge your point about guilt vs. innocence..i guess the point will be that we will think the iraqi's will favor guilty..while they will see us as favoring innocent.

And, who will blame them as we can see from the way we've prosecuted guiltiy soldiers..and the complete lack of oversight of Blackwater.

Solving: I don't know. But, creative negotiations..is that code for us strong arming them? I don't see much negotiating on our side.

[bobblehead]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

You both make a good point, and it sucks that our military was depleted in raw numbers over the years. The rumsfeld small tactical army model was sweet til we decided to nation build, then the numbers just weren't there...result, pay blackwater to boost the numbers.

The only compromise I can see here is to make it clear to blackwater and any other contractor that they must follow the US military code of conduct or be subject to the military courts, take it or leave it. If they want the paycheck, they will agree, if not, we have to look elsewhere to boost the numbers. I don't think putting them under the jurisdiction of iraq would work, they would pack up and leave the country and we would be very short in numbers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

3. granting of immunity for all US troops and private contractors. In other words, if a soldier or contractor commits a crime against an Iraqi civilian, he(she) will not be prosecuted no matter what the crime.

Can you imagine the mob mentality that would occur if an American soldier was charged in Iraq? There wouldn't be anything resembling a fair defense system for an American soldier in that case. This is a typical left-wing rant though. Also, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be prosecuted. We do have military courts, and people do get prosecuted quite regularly in them. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I bet most people that have served or have a close one serving in the military would agree. Actually, I think most Americans would agree--even many Democrats.

Harvey,

the issue isn't military..it is those private contractors. The aren't subject to the uniform code of conduct. They can act indiscriminately...and have.

This isn't some liberal issue...again, you try and negate a real issue by blaming it on liberals.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that a soldier of ours couldn't get a fair trial. If we are promoting democracy then let's promote it...stop hedging. Talk about prejudice..you aren't even willing to allow that the Iraqis could be fair...i think tex calls that the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Lastly, do you think the Iraqis will be happy if they see a prosecution that doesn't feel like justice. Just as you think they can't have a fair trial, i'm quite sure they feel the same..that a military trial won't be fair either..it will favor the soldier.

Or, by mob mentality..do you also include the way americans have acted towards those who appear to be suspicious middle easterners.

You both make a good point, and it sucks that our military was depleted in raw numbers over the years. The rumsfeld small tactical army model was sweet til we decided to nation build, then the numbers just weren't there...result, pay blackwater to boost the numbers.

The only compromise I can see here is to make it clear to blackwater and any other contractor that they must follow the US military code of conduct or be subject to the military courts, take it or leave it. If they want the paycheck, they will agree, if not, we have to look elsewhere to boost the numbers. I don't think putting them under the jurisdiction of iraq would work, they would pack up and leave the country and we would be very short in numbers.

I don't know the answer, but Blackwater, etc. must be held accountable to someone.

I do think Blackwater would allow themselves to be under iraqi jurisdiction....losing a few employees is just the cost of doing business. Guess i'm a cynic.

[bobblehead]

your a cynic, they wouldn't be able to do their job under iraqi jurisdiction, and it would pressure us to have our military under the same, that just won't happen. Our miilitary holds our boys accountable....too much sometimes considering it is war, and they would do a fine job holding blackwater accountable....a better job than has been done so far.

[texaspackerbacker]

If Blackwater and other contractors violate the rules of engagement or other American policies, they will be dealt with by our side.

Beyond that, they should have immunity. NO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, not even a relatively friendly one that we installed and that is progressing toward decent representative democracy, should have any say over Americans acting within the constraints of American rules of engagement or policies. Allowing that would allow some other government to judge our rules and policies.

It would take a real America-hater to be in favor of that. Do I hear any of that sort of creature out there? That's a "dare" for you forum leftists. Any takers?

[oregonpackfan]

If Blackwater and other contractors violate the rules of engagement or other American policies, they will be dealt with by our side.


The fact is that Erik Prince's Blackwater has had numerous infractions against Iraqi civilians during this war. Because of the immunity Blackwater already receives, none of their employees has been charged or convicted of any crime.

I suggest people read Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Here is a website containing excerpts from his book:

http://www.blackwaterbook.com/

[Harlan Huckleby]

I suggest people read Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Why is it that people who oppose the war in Iraq are also the ones concerned about private contractors?

There may be legitimate criticism about weak oversite and accountability of armed contractors. I would like to hear that argument from a person who does not have an agenda. Why aren't Joe Biden and other intelligent, responsible war-skeptics going nuts? But a little perspective: most contractors are there in support functions: driving trucks, cutting hair, caring for wounded people. I don't know, but suspect, that the "Mercenary Army" book is shallow propaganda.

What I know for certain is that the demonization of an entire class of people who are just trying to do their job in a dangerous environent is disgraceful.

[texaspackerbacker]

Oregon, are you aware that "immunity" in this case simply means that they are not subject to IRAQI laws and government? They still are just as subject to OUR laws and rules of engagement as any other American.

I HOPE you wouldn't want it any other way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/saddam-hanging.jpg


The Iraqi Justice System that we are supposed to place our citizens under.

[oregonpackfan]

Oregon, are you aware that "immunity" in this case simply means that they are not subject to IRAQI laws and government? They still are just as subject to OUR laws and rules of engagement as any other American.



Texas,

The immunity that was granted to the private contractors meant that they are not subject to any type of prosecution be it in reference Iraqi, American, or International laws. In other words, they have a free pass to do whatever they want.

While the majority of the private contractors have conducted themselves in an ethical, professional manner, there is a disturbing large minority of contractors who have literally gotten away with murder.

[Freak Out]

I was under the impression that the only way Blackwater could be brought up on any charges was if State did a review of some incident involving their activity and deemed it negligent or criminal...as far as I know that has not been done to date. There have been plenty of lawsuits filed against Blackwater in American courts but that is a different matter entirely.

[oregonpackfan]

[quote=oregonpackfan] I suggest people read Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Why is it that people who oppose the war in Iraq are also the ones concerned about private contractors?

Much of the concern about the hiring of private contractors is that most of them received no-bid contracts. In other words, the US government officials did not take expense or competancy of the companies into account in awarding the contracts.

What was the deciding factor in awarding of the contracts was their ties to the Republican Party. Most of the companies like Halliburton(Cheney was its former CEO), Blackwater, Bechtel, etc. have long been financial contributors and supporters of the Republican Party.

A number of military leaders oppose the extensive use of private contractors because they cannot be used as soldiers in case of a battle emergency. In the past, soldiers were trained as cooks, clerks, drivers, etc. In the event of a military need, those support personnel could be counted on to fight in a battle. The privately contracted clerks, drivers, etc. usually have little or no military training and cannot be used in a battlefield situation. They become a liability rather than an asset.

As far as protection of military and civilian leaders in the past, elite Marine and/or Army units were assigned to protect them. That costs taxpayers the standard rate of military pay for those soldiers. Some of the Blackwater mercenaries who are assigned to people like Rice, Petraus, etc. make up to $1,000 a day--all at the cost of the American taxpayer.

Even the private truck driver contractors earn up to $90,000 a year. Compare that cost with the soldier assigned as a truck driver who might make $15,000 a year.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Oregon, are you aware that "immunity" in this case simply means that they are not subject to IRAQI laws and government? They still are just as subject to OUR laws and rules of engagement as any other American.

I HOPE you wouldn't want it any other way.

Sorry, but you are wrong. They aren't subject to our laws or the Uniform Code of Conduct.

THere is no disputing this. It would be nice if you actually talked about things you had some clue about.

Bremer issued the order. One of the final acts of the CPA, Order 17 declared that foreign contractors within Iraq, including private military firms, would not be subject to any Iraqi laws.

Who authored 17...you guessed it..CPA official named Lawrence Peter, who oversaw the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. As soon as the CPA was dissolved, the Private Security Company Association of Iraq hired Peter to act as its liaison and lobbyist there.

Yep, no conflict of interest there. :roll:

Order 17 was a radical break with U.S. policy, such an order had never been promulgated before. Don't confuse it with a Status of Force Agreement like those negotiated with sovereign nations such as South Korea. Those agreements are subject to complex bargaining and mutual assurance. Nor are contractors subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice because, after all, they are not in the U.S. military. Nor has the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 been brought to bear on contractors in Iraq.

THe contracts are funnelled thru the state dep't..so the MEJA doesn't apply.

Let's actually look at the facts. When a Blackwater employee gunned down the VP's bodyguard..prince said they couldn't incarcerate him because it was up to our justice dep't.

But Richard J. Griffin, head of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified, "The area of laws available for prosecution is very murky."

End result..nothing.

P.S. Harlan, the reason you don't hear much from Dems (speaking of the past)..when they brought about Congress hearings..and prince testified..they had to appear non-partisan...despite Prince's/blackwater's deep Repub ties (oh...let's not forget the Amway DeVos's...prince's sis..who is also a ardent Repub supporter...but, who split from her fam by supporting Bush).

Perhaps you forgot or were unaware of the hearings. But, leave it to the Repubs to hang themselves. When Issa...tried to present them as just a normal campaign contributor he let the cat out of the bag when he asked about the 10K donation to the GREEN PARTY prince and his wife made. Hmm, Green Party..why would that happen? Could it be to divide Penn Dems and defeat Casey against ultra right wing/ultra christian Rick Santorum?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Even the private truck driver contractors earn up to $90,000 a year. Compare that cost with the soldier assigned as a truck driver who might make $15,000 a year.

The salary that a military person makes is just a small percentage of the cost to taxpayers, starting with a soldier's recruitment costs, enlistment bonus and training. Military people can retire with significant pensions after just 20 years of service, they cost the taxpapers for their entire lifespan. (I may have the years wrong, but its about right.)

The contractors are hired because they are far cheaper in the long run.

[Harlan Huckleby]

P.S. Harlan, the reason you don't hear much from Dems (speaking of the past)..when they brought about Congress hearings..and prince testified..they had to appear non-partisan...despite Prince's/blackwater's deep Repub ties (oh...let's not forget the Amway DeVos's...prince's sis..who is also a ardent Repub supporter...but, who split from her fam by supporting Bush).

I have to confess that the contractor issue bores my tits off. I really don't know enough about it. However, I am not playing favorites. I am no more interested in the contractors who work for the war effort than I am interested in the contractors who maintain our national parks, or the contractors who provide medical care to medicare patients.

If there is waste and corruption, go get um.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Even the private truck driver contractors earn up to $90,000 a year. Compare that cost with the soldier assigned as a truck driver who might make $15,000 a year.

The salary that a military person makes is just a small percentage of the cost to taxpayers, starting with a soldier's recruitment costs, enlistment bonus and training. Military people can retire with significant pensions after just 20 years of service, they cost the taxpapers for their entire lifespan. (I may have the years wrong, but its about right.)

The contractors are hired because they are far cheaper in the long run.

Harlan,

THere is no study that will back you up on that..not saying you are wrong, but there is no proof.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/ceff.html

What we do know is that private contractors often undermine our own forces and goals.

Time and again, Blackwater has triggered incidents undermining U.S. strategies and endangering military forces. In 2004, four Blackwater men brazenly drove through the insecure city of Fallujah, were quickly cornered by a mob, were killed and burned, and their charred bodies hung from a bridge. In the ensuing outcry, U.S. forces were ordered to encircle the city, attack, withdraw and attack again, eventually leveling it.

In 2006, a drunken Blackwater mercenary murdered a bodyguard for the Iraqi vice president, and was spirited out of the country with U.S. Embassy complicity, paid off and never prosecuted.

Sept. 16, a Blackwater contingent gunned down at least 11 Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Interior Ministry to banish Blackwater,overturned by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who agreed under U.S. pressure to accept a grudging State Department investigation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Even the private truck driver contractors earn up to $90,000 a year. Compare that cost with the soldier assigned as a truck driver who might make $15,000 a year.

The salary that a military person makes is just a small percentage of the cost to taxpayers, starting with a soldier's recruitment costs, enlistment bonus and training. Military people can retire with significant pensions after just 20 years of service, they cost the taxpapers for their entire lifespan. (I may have the years wrong, but its about right.)

The contractors are hired because they are far cheaper in the long run.

Harlan,

THere is no study that will back you up on that..not saying you are wrong, but there is no proof.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/ceff.html



I'm prepared to offer a full & unconditonal surrender. Send all the contractors to boot camp and call them soldiers. If they don't like it, there are plenty of Mexicans ready to step into their place.

I really don't care about these accounting details. I just doubt it is a simple and obvious choice. And if you mention the name "cheney" I'm putting my hands over my ears and "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH"ing.

[Freak Out]

Cheney.

[texaspackerbacker]

They are not and should not be subject to Iraqi or international law, and not being military, they wouldn't be covered under the UCMJ--which I assume is what you meant to say. As for American law in general, I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure--as you guys seem to be claiming to be. Could you possibly provide some documentation that Blackwater and other contractors are, as you say, actually exempted by their immunity from American law--as this still seems highly unlikely to me.

Example: Blackwater guy A decides to frag Blackwater guy B. He is immune to prosecution? I don't think so. Blackwater guy C rapes an Iraqi woman. He avoids American prosecution? I really doubt it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

They are not and should not be subject to Iraqi or international law, and not being military, they wouldn't be covered under the UCMJ--which I assume is what you meant to say. As for American law in general, I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure--as you guys seem to be claiming to be. Could you possibly provide some documentation that Blackwater and other contractors are, as you say, actually exempted by their immunity from American law--as this still seems highly unlikely to me.

I, and others have posted the truth.

Go find it yourself. why don't you find something that proves they are. Go find ONE case of a contractor being prosecuted. Should be quite easy for you.

As for not being subject to Iraqi law...interesting as this is the first time that has EVER happened, but i'm sure you have an excuse for that as well.

[texaspackerbacker]

So AGAIN you weasel out. I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the pathetic likes of you. Hopefully, if there is any truth to what you say, Oregon will back it up with some evidence.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So AGAIN you weasel out. I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the pathetic likes of you. Hopefully, if there is any truth to what you say, Oregon will back it up with some evidence.

WEasel out? YOu are the one making wrong statements. I have provided enough evidence/proof.

THe burden lies on you to prove that they are being prosecuted. I have shown that they aren't.

[bobblehead]

So AGAIN you weasel out. I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the pathetic likes of you. Hopefully, if there is any truth to what you say, Oregon will back it up with some evidence.

WEasel out? YOu are the one making wrong statements. I have provided enough evidence/proof.

THe burden lies on you to prove that they are being prosecuted. I have shown that they aren't.

Maybe I have read it wrong and I dont' know the truth, but I think that Blackwater is SUPPOSED to be under the american judicial system. That does not mean they have been held accountable so far, quite the opposite from what I can find.

Now, tyrone, listen close. Tex, you are wrong about this, blackwater has basically run around iraq opening fire whenever they felt like it, undermining our own troops and no one actually has held them accountable. I THINK our justice system is supposed to, but simply has chosen not to. I do agree with you that I think tyrone is wrong about them not being subject to any law...although they EFFECTIVELY have been.

This is why I would like to see them placed under the militaries jurisdiction whilie in Iraq, our military is not fond of a private company making it harder for them to gain the trust, heart and minds of the iraqi people.

Oh yea, tex did get harsh with the rhetoric, it was unneccessary. He could have simply said "just cuz you have proclaimed the truth doesn't convince me" without calling you pathetic. There, my job is done.

[bobblehead]

Time and again, Blackwater has triggered incidents undermining U.S. strategies and endangering military forces. In 2004, four Blackwater men brazenly drove through the insecure city of Fallujah, were quickly cornered by a mob, were killed and burned, and their charred bodies hung from a bridge. In the ensuing outcry, U.S. forces were ordered to encircle the city, attack, withdraw and attack again, eventually leveling it.



I do agree with you mostly, but I think this particular incident is partly what caused blackwater to get so agressive. This is NOT an example of blackwater triggering an incident, quite the opposite. I think this incident is a lot of why blackwater acted in the way they did in your follow up examples. Not saying it was right, just shedding some light on the history of events. They are/were definately acting criminally in a lot of cases, but its not like they simply went to iraq and started shooting right away, but the worse the country got in '04-'06 the more agressive blackwater got.

We have the benefit of second guessing from the safety of our computers, but they were living in a civil war. I still think putting them under military code and military jurisdiction would have been best.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Time and again, Blackwater has triggered incidents undermining U.S. strategies and endangering military forces. In 2004, four Blackwater men brazenly drove through the insecure city of Fallujah, were quickly cornered by a mob, were killed and burned, and their charred bodies hung from a bridge. In the ensuing outcry, U.S. forces were ordered to encircle the city, attack, withdraw and attack again, eventually leveling it.



I do agree with you mostly, but I think this particular incident is partly what caused blackwater to get so agressive. This is NOT an example of blackwater triggering an incident, quite the opposite. I think this incident is a lot of why blackwater acted in the way they did in your follow up examples. Not saying it was right, just shedding some light on the history of events. They are/were definately acting criminally in a lot of cases, but its not like they simply went to iraq and started shooting right away, but the worse the country got in '04-'06 the more agressive blackwater got.

We have the benefit of second guessing from the safety of our computers, but they were living in a civil war. I still think putting them under military code and military jurisdiction would have been best.

Blackwater prosecution: this is just another bush legal maneuver to exempt them..ie, redefining what is torture, etc. If the contracts were thru the DoD then MEJA woulda applied, but they ran them thru STate...and as the quote i provide shows...no one is exactly sure what is the prosecutorial ability.

Order 17,granting contractors legal immunity, is of a piece with the infamous memos written by David Addington and John Yoo which set out an unaccountable executive in the name of war, justified torture and unilaterally abrogated U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

Richard J. Griffin, head of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified, "The area of laws available for prosecution is very murky." Clarifying the law was hardly helped by the absence of any witness from the Justice Department. Wow, what a surprise from this administration.

As for Blackwater being aggressive...who cares. That wasn't my point. The point was that they triggered and put our troops in harms way. Those 4 men were going thru the insecure city of Fallujah.

No way our military does that.

But, i highly doubt that was on their mind a few days after that Fallujah ambush, when Blackwater operatives engaged in an all-out firefight with supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Iraqi city of Najaf, once again putting Blackwater in the center of major developments in Iraq.

To quote Waxman.."There is no evidence in the documents that the Committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater's actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company's high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation."

According to the committee, 80% of violence was initiated by Blackwater...and, i for one can't blame them..with nothing to fear and no fear of reprisal..i would be killing indiscriminately as well....that kid looks like a terrorist..shoot'em.

Lastly, while i certainly wouldn't want a blackwater or other contractor unfairly prosecuted...i do think that if we are exporting our brand of democracy, it looks piss poor that there isn't any due process for an iraqi victim. If our military commits crimes..there is due process.

That makes us look bad..and certainly can be used as ammo for those iraqis looking to foment trouble.

BTW, that muslim prez candidate has called for more accountability. Has McCain?

[bobblehead]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

[oregonpackfan]

So AGAIN you weasel out. I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the pathetic likes of you. Hopefully, if there is any truth to what you say, Oregon will back it up with some evidence.

Texas,

Thanks for the compliment but Tyrone does provide some established evidence about Blackwater. If you want more evidence, I encourage you to get hold of Jeremy Scahill's book and gather more information for yourself.

The United States currently has about 160,000 military troops in Iraq. It has an amazing 140,000 private contractors in Iraq as well. In essence, the Bush administration has made efforts to privatize the Iraq War.

There are two more disturbing aspects about Blackwater not mentioned in this thread. First, many of the Blackwater soldiers are not even Americans! They are recruiting soldiers of fortune from all over the world. Some of the countries Blackwater has recruited include Chile, the Phillipines, and eastern European countries. Should we trust a private army that whose members are not all American citizens?

There have been also several firefights involving Blackwater soldiers and American soldiers fighting together where the Blackwater personnel actually took charge! This happened in the Battle of Fallujah where both groups were on a building rooftop together. The Blackwater officers were actually giving orders on gun emplacements and shooting assignments to the American soldiers next to them.

Having private army personnel directing American military personnel sets a very dangerous precedent.

[texaspackerbacker]

I have heard there are a lot of these Blackwater type contractors, although I didn't realize there were as many as 140,000. I'd say that's a good thing, as that's 140,000 less troops required.

I also don't doubt that they "run around Iraq" doing whatever, including shooting whoever, as needed. This apparently falls within the rules of engagement--identifying enemies in a wartime context and taking appropriate action.

What I STILL haven't seen evidence of, however (you guys saying so, Tyrone, does NOT constitute evidence), is the idea that bad deeds by these contractors are somehow NOT subject to American laws. Are you really telling me that if a contractor murders or rapes someone, that is covered by immunity?

If you want to make the assertion that the rules of engagement are too loose, fine, that's a matter of opinion. But whether or not violations are immune to prosecution--by our laws, that is a matter of fact. What you say SEEMS illogical. If the facts somehow are as you say, I'm simply asking you to show evidence.

[MJZiggy]

So AGAIN you weasel out. I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the pathetic likes of you. Hopefully, if there is any truth to what you say, Oregon will back it up with some evidence.

Texas,

Thanks for the compliment but Tyrone does provide some established evidence about Blackwater. If you want more evidence, I encourage you to get hold of Jeremy Scahill's book and gather more information for yourself.

The United States currently has about 160,000 military troops in Iraq. It has an amazing 140,000 private contractors in Iraq as well. In essence, the Bush administration has made efforts to privatize the Iraq War.

There are two more disturbing aspects about Blackwater not mentioned in this thread. First, many of the Blackwater soldiers are not even Americans! They are recruiting soldiers of fortune from all over the world. Some of the countries Blackwater has recruited include Chile, the Phillipines, and eastern European countries. Should we trust a private army that whose members are not all American citizens?

There have been also several firefights involving Blackwater soldiers and American soldiers fighting together where the Blackwater personnel actually took charge! This happened in the Battle of Fallujah where both groups were on a building rooftop together. The Blackwater officers were actually giving orders on gun emplacements and shooting assignments to the American soldiers next to them.

Having private army personnel directing American military personnel sets a very dangerous precedent.

Keep in mind, OPF, that when they give numbers of private contractors in Iraq, many of them are there not to fight, but to help clean up the mess left behind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

[bobblehead]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

[texaspackerbacker]

The truth about Obama indeed does need to be sorted out.

Apparently it's certain that he was NOT sworn in with a Koran. On the other hand, he speaks in his own book about studying the Koran at the Madrasa in Indonesia where he was enrolled from age 6-12.

So the real question was when and why did he switch from Islam to Christianity? The most likely answer is that his wife convinced him at the time he entered politics--about 14 years ago--the being seen as a Muslim would be political suicide.

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

[Freak Out]

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

Unconditional? Bullshit. So Iran nukes us and Obama gets him on the phone? Don't think so.

[texaspackerbacker]

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

Unconditional? Bullshit. So Iran nukes us and Obama gets him on the phone? Don't think so.

You lost me there with that comment, Freak Out. Could you possibly elaborate a bit?

[Freak Out]

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

Unconditional? Bullshit. So Iran nukes us and Obama gets him on the phone? Don't think so.

You lost me there with that comment, Freak Out. Could you possibly elaborate a bit?

Sorry Texas......
I have never heard Obama sat he would "unconditionally" talk with any Iranian leader. I heard him say he would open up a dialog with Iran to talk about our differences and regional issues. Hell....I think were talking to Iran right now.

[Freak Out]

Maliki Criticizes U.S. Demands to Stay in Iraq
Iraqi Prime Minister Says Security Talks at Impasse

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 13, 2008; 1:43 PM

BAGHDAD, June 13 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday denounced demands made by the United States to extend the presence of American troops in Iraq, saying that the two sides are deadlocked and far from reaching an agreement.

"We found out that the demands of the American side are strongly violating the sovereignty of Iraq, something we could never accept," Maliki said.

Speaking during a visit to Amman, Maliki for the first time added his voice to the growing chorus of senior Iraqi politicians opposed to U.S. proposals for a status of forces agreement, which would authorize the presence of American troops, and a long-term strategic agreement between the two countries. He said the drafts presented by the American side were unacceptable, but that both parties would continue to work toward a deal.

"The initial drafts that were presented have reached a dead end," Maliki said.

But Maliki specifically rejected two positions that American officials have signaled are nonnegotiable. He said the Iraqis expected the United States to commit to protecting Iraq from foreign aggression, and he ruled out allowing Americans to be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The Bush administration has said it cannot promise to protect Iraq from foreign aggression without submitting such a commitment to Congress for approval, a step the White House does not wish to take.

The United States initially demanded that both American troops and private contractors be granted immunity, but over the past week Washington has softened its position and dropped its demand for immunity for contractors. Maliki, however, said that was an unacceptable compromise.

"We could not give amnesty to a soldier carrying arms on our ground," he said. "We will never give it."

The United Nations mandate that authorizes the presence of American troops in Iraq is due to expire on Dec. 31, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments are working toward a bilateral agreement to allow American troops to remain.

Although Iraqi politicians have becoming increasingly angered by U.S. demands during the talks, top American officials have insisted that an agreement could be reached by their established deadline at the end of July.

Yet Maliki appeared to dismiss such talk as far too optimistic.

"I am astonished by those who are talking about how close the agreement is to be signed," Maliki said.

[texaspackerbacker]

None of this would be a serious issue if not for the fact that one of the hallmarks of Obama's foreign policy is unconditional negotiation with the lunatic, Ahmedinijad--who probably more than anybody other Bin Laden symbolizes the absolute blood enemy of America and all we stand for.

Unconditional? Bullshit. So Iran nukes us and Obama gets him on the phone? Don't think so.

You lost me there with that comment, Freak Out. Could you possibly elaborate a bit?

Sorry Texas......
I have never heard Obama sat he would "unconditionally" talk with any Iranian leader. I heard him say he would open up a dialog with Iran to talk about our differences and regional issues. Hell....I think were talking to Iran right now.

True, "we" as in Condoleeza Rice and other lower level officials. Nothing wrong with talking to enemies in general. However, Obama was talking about legitimatizing an all out terrorist and lunitic like Ahmedinijad with a face to face meeting with the president of the United States--and this from a guy who as a mere candidate, refuses to meet with Petraeus, the general who commands our troops in the middle east.

Besides, it's one thing for people from a cowboy-esque America-loving administration to talk from strength to enemies, and quite another for a weakling who spews weakness and anti-American positions to go and give away the farm.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? :oops: ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

[bobblehead]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? :oops: ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

Since I have roundly criticized mccain without ever (that I can think of) defending him I don't think you asking me a question where I am supposed to defend him now is relevant. I have no clue where he stands on it, and I'm not doing the research to defend a man I'm not going to vote for. If you feel the need to point out something, point it out, I'll probably agree with you.

[Freak Out]

June 17, 2008

Army Overseer Tells of Ouster Over KBR Stir

By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — The Army official who managed the Pentagon’s largest contract in Iraq says he was ousted from his job when he refused to approve paying more than $1 billion in questionable charges to KBR, the Houston-based company that has provided food, housing and other services to American troops.

The official, Charles M. Smith, was the senior civilian overseeing the multibillion-dollar contract with KBR during the first two years of the war. Speaking out for the first time, Mr. Smith said that he was forced from his job in 2004 after informing KBR officials that the Army would impose escalating financial penalties if they failed to improve their chaotic Iraqi operations.

Army auditors had determined that KBR lacked credible data or records for more than $1 billion in spending, so Mr. Smith refused to sign off on the payments to the company. “They had a gigantic amount of costs they couldn’t justify,” he said in an interview. “Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.”

But he was suddenly replaced, he said, and his successors — after taking the unusual step of hiring an outside contractor to consider KBR’s claims — approved most of the payments he had tried to block.

Army officials denied that Mr. Smith had been removed because of the dispute, but confirmed that they had reversed his decision, arguing that blocking the payments to KBR would have eroded basic services to troops. They said that KBR had warned that if it was not paid, it would reduce payments to subcontractors, which in turn would cut back on services.

“You have to understand the circumstances at the time,” said Jeffrey P. Parsons, executive director of the Army Contracting Command. “We could not let operational support suffer because of some other things.”

Mr. Smith’s account fills in important gaps about the Pentagon’s handling of the KBR contract, which has cost more than $20 billion so far and has come under fierce criticism from lawmakers.

While it was previously reported that the Army had held up large payments to the company and then switched course, Mr. Smith has provided a glimpse of what happened inside the Army during the biggest showdown between the government and KBR. He is giving his account just as the Pentagon has recently awarded KBR part of a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for KBR, said in a statement that the company “conducts its operations in a manner that is compliant with the terms of the contract.” She added that it had not engaged in any improper behavior.

Ever since KBR emerged as the dominant contractor in Iraq, critics have questioned whether the company has benefited from its political connections to the Bush administration. Until last year, KBR was known as Kellogg, Brown and Root and was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas oil services giant, where Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive.

When told of Mr. Smith’s account, Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said it “is startling, and it confirms the committee’s worst fears. KBR has repeatedly gouged the taxpayer, and the Bush administration has looked the other way every time.”

Mr. Smith, a civilian employee of the Army for 31 years, spent his entire career at the Rock Island Arsenal, the Army’s headquarters for much of its contracting work, near Davenport, Iowa. He said he had waited to speak out until after he retired in February.

As chief of the Field Support Contracting Division of the Army Field Support Command, he was in charge of the KBR contract from the start. Mr. Smith soon came to believe that KBR’s business operations in Iraq were a mess. By the end of 2003, the Defense Contract Audit Agency told him that about $1 billion in cost estimates were not credible and should not be used as the basis for Army payments to the contractor.

“KBR didn’t move proper business systems into Iraq,” Mr. Smith said.

Along with the auditors, he said, he pushed for months to get KBR to provide data to justify the spending, including approximately $200 million for food services. Mr. Smith soon felt under pressure to ease up on KBR, he said. He and his boss, Maj. Gen. Wade H. McManus Jr., then the commander of the Army Field Support Command, were called to Pentagon meetings with Tina Ballard, then the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for policy and procurement.

Ms. Ballard urged them to clear up KBR’s contract problems quickly, but General McManus ignored the request, Mr. Smith said. Ms. Ballard declined to comment for this article, as did General McManus.

Eventually, Mr. Smith began warning KBR that he would withhold payments and performance bonuses until the company provided the Army with adequate data to justify the expenses. The bonuses — worth up to 2 percent of the value of the work — had to be approved by special boards of Army officials, and Mr. Smith made it clear that he would not set up the boards without the information.

Mr. Smith also told KBR that, until the information was received, he would withhold 15 percent of all payments on its future work in Iraq.

“KBR really did not like that, and they told me they were going to fight it,” Mr. Smith recalled.

In August 2004, he told one of his deputies, Mary Beth Watkins, to hand deliver a letter about the threatened penalties to a KBR official visiting Rock Island. That official, whose name Mr. Smith said he could not recall, responded by saying, “This is going to get turned around,” Mr. Smith said.

Two officials familiar with the episode confirmed that account, but would speak only on the condition of anonymity out of concern for their jobs.

The next morning, Mr. Smith said he got a call from Brig. Gen. Jerome Johnson, who succeeded General McManus when he retired the month before. “He told me, “You’ve got to pull back that letter,”’ Mr. Smith recalled. General Johnson declined to comment for this article.

A day later, Mr. Smith discovered that he had been replaced when he went to a meeting with KBR officials and found a colleague there in his place. Mr. Smith was moved into a job planning for future contracts with Iraq. Ms. Watkins, who also declined to comment, was reassigned as well.

Mr. Parsons, the contracting director, confirmed the personnel changes. But he denied that pressure from KBR was a factor in the Army’s decision making about the payments. “This issue was not decided overnight, and had been discussed all the way up to the office of the secretary of defense,” he said.

Soon after Mr. Smith was replaced, the Army hired a contractor, RCI Holding Corporation, to review KBR’s costs. “They came up with estimates, using very weak data from KBR,” Mr. Smith said. “They ignored D.C.A.A.’s auditors,” he said, referring to the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman, disputed that. He said in a statement that the Army auditing agency “does not believe that RCI was used to circumvent” the Army audits.

Paul Heagen, a spokesman for RCI’s parent company, the Serco Group, said his firm had insisted on working with the Army auditors. While KBR did not provide all of the data Mr. Smith had been seeking, Mr. Heagen said his company had used “best practices” and sound methodology to determine KBR’s costs.

Bob Bauman, a former Pentagon fraud investigator and contracting expert, said that was unusual. “I have never seen a contractor given that position, of estimating costs and scrubbing D.C.A.A.’s numbers,” he said. “I believe they are treading on dangerous ground.”

The Army also convened boards that awarded KBR high performance bonuses, according to Mr. Smith.

High grades on its work in Iraq also allowed KBR to win more work from the Pentagon, and this spring, KBR was awarded a share in the new 10-year contract. The Army also announced that Serco, RCI’s parent, will help oversee the Army’s new contract with KBR.

“In the end,” Mr. Smith said, “KBR got what it wanted.”

[oregonpackfan]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

[falco]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

too bad Eisenhower isn't running for president I would vote for him.

[hoosier]

This type of financial abuse by private firms allied with the military and political parties is what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the country about in 1960 when he coined the phrase "Military Industrial complex."


Eisenhower was no pot-smoking, liberal who "hated" America. He was:

--a former American general

--the former Commander of the Allied Invasion Force on D-Day, Normandy, France in 1944.

--a Republican

So he was a pot-smoking liberal who LOVED America. :P

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/RIDER151207_468x516.jpg

[oregonpackfan]

Here is the portion of President Eisenhower's outgoing speech of '61 warning us of the dangers of "The military industrial complex"--a phrase he created.

V.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hey, we are basically in agreement...if we have stated we don't know what law they are under, that is pathetic. They should be accountable somewhere, but I have agreed with you that they haven't been whether it was stated or not.

Not sure why you quoted my words since you and I are mostly together on this except I thought they were supposed to be under our system, I may be wrong according to a couple things you said.

Lastly, I hope the muslim presidential comment wasn't aimed at me, I have defended the guy on this charge. You quoted me and then brought it up in sarcasm, and some here may think I have said that....nothing could be further from the truth. I even did a reply all when I got that bullshit memo about him being sworn in on the koran. I think he sucks in many ways and will be a horrible president, but I have NEVER implied in any way he is a muslim. I give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time, so I'll assume you were being generally sarcastic and not aiming it at me even though it was in a post responding to me. If it was aimed at me....well, I won't be giving you the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Relax..it was a joke. Not aimed at you. The BTW shoulda clued you in...it is an aside.

The point was..what has McCain said?

I understand it was a joke, it was about as funny as those jokes about conservatives being rascists and bigots. I really think the healing you guys want (as do I) can't begin until those little stereotypical shots are as frowned on as people making rascist jokes. They are not different and it saddens me that you don't get that. It hurts me just as much to be lumped in with bigots as it hurts blacks to get stereotyped in the ways they are.

The BTW could have just as easily been aimed directly at me, implying that I had mad such a claim and now your were asking me a question throwing my laguage back at me...remeber, the clarity of the message is the senders responsibility.

No. You are getting it wrong. It is like when a black person uses the n word. We liberals can make fun of ourselves..but, like the analogy it is hurtful when others do it.

I was not trying to lump you in with anybody.

Message: Point taken (or should i now weasel out..and pretend i agree with patler? :oops: ). I don't know why you think that it was implied that you had made that point. I shoulda made it a P.S.

BTW, waiting for you to give us McCain's side....which was THE WHOLE POINT.

Since I have roundly criticized mccain without ever (that I can think of) defending him I don't think you asking me a question where I am supposed to defend him now is relevant. I have no clue where he stands on it, and I'm not doing the research to defend a man I'm not going to vote for. If you feel the need to point out something, point it out, I'll probably agree with you.

I wasn't asking you to defend him..just to give his views. I thought you might know them.

[Freak Out]

Consider the source.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=127048

Five years on, Saddam's successor resurfaces
17/06/2008 03:06:00 PM GMT

Izzat Ibrahim Addouri has resurfaced despite a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head.

By Nicola Nasser

* Addouri Outlines Anti-U.S. Strategy

For the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in April 2003, the deputy of Saddam Hussein, the late President of Iraq, Izzat Ibrahim Addouri has resurfaced, despite a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, in a lengthy interview with Abdel-Azim Manaf, the editor-in-chief of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Mawqif Al-Arabi, not a mainstream, on May 26 to lay out the strategy and tactics of the Iraqi resistance led by the former ruling party, Al-Baath. Addouri's resurface and the resistance strategy he has laid out represent a direct challenge to the U.S. occupying power.

Manaf told The Associated Press (AP) he interviewed addouri "on the battlefield." The "dialogue" was conducted "with a commander in his lion's den and among his soldiers," in the "war zone" and on the "combat field while weapons were talking," Manaf said in his introduction. Addouri spoke in his capacity as "the Supreme Commander of the Jihad and Liberation Front, the Pan-Arab Secretary General of the Al-Baath Arab Socialist Party and the Secretary of Iraq Region," the Egyptian editor added.

The AP said "Addouri is believed to play an important role in financing" the resistance, "though little is known about how directly he leads fighters on the ground." However the U.S. occupying power, as well as Iran and the Iranian-allied regime Washington brought about in Baghdad after the occupation, have been keen to downplay the role played by Addouri and his party in the national resistance and instead highlight the marginal role played by Al-Qaeda, which was brought into Iraq for the first time ever thanks to U.S., and other terrorists.

If history could illuminate current events, Addouri's reference to this "blackout" media policy is vindicated by the precedent of the U.S. – British planning for the coup that brought down the Iranian leader Mohamed Musaddiq's government in August 1953, which installed the Shah in power.

"One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs (against Musaddiq, which was "a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. The mob was paid for by American dollars.") as supporters of the Iranian Communist Party - Tudeh … As in every other British and U.S. military intervention until the collapse of the USSR, the 'communist threat' scenario was deployed as the Official Story … The real threat of nationalism (and dirtier aims like protecting oil profits) were downplayed or removed from the picture presented to the public." [Mark Curtis, "Web of Deciet," Vintage, 2003] In Iraq, the U.S. propaganda machine has only replaced the "communist threat" by that of Al-Qaeda.

Manaf, in his introduction, noted how much Addouri was a dedicated religious man, very well versed in Islamic theology and Arab history, and familiar with Sufism. His Arab and Islamic culture was reflected extensively in his answers, which were full of quotations from the Holy Qur'an and the sayings of historic Arab and Muslim leaders, a fact that makes the translation of his interview into English an impossible mission sometimes.

Addouri identified Al-Baath as a "revolutionary organization, a brave and innovative leadership, an armed revolutionary organization; it represents a fearless army and glorious armed forces."

Denying media reports about his ill health (born July 1, 1942), Addouri confirmed that, "I am in good health," adding that, "today, I believe I am immigrating to God and His Prophet," and "left the world, myself and its fortunes behind my back" to be totally dedicated to and "garrisoned for God and for His Sake" until "either victory or martyrdom."

* Three chapters of resistance

"Our resistance and battle with the (U.S.) occupier is not new," Addouri said. "It started during the early years of Al-Baath formation to expand and deepen after the glorious Tammuz (July) revolution of 1968 … Prior to 2003, the imperialist enemy used local forces from Iraq, and the (Arab) nation sometimes; other times it used regional powers to fight us on its behalf. When its local and regional instruments failed to stop the Pan-Arab renaissance march of Iraq, the U.S. enemy directly entered the field of struggle and combat, amassed great powers, and led the invasion and occupation by itself."

He identified three stages of the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. -led invasion and occupation. "The first chapter was the official showdown, when the regular formations of the brave armed forces stood up to the U.S. invasion; then the launch of the popular confrontation against the invasion, which inter-wined with this chapter. The popular, official and military integration occurred immediately and the people's war of liberation started during the first week of the invasion, as was planned by the leadership and according to its strategy."

During this second chapter of the resistance formations from the civil organizations of the party, Fedayeen Saddam and volunteers took part in carrying our "martyrdom operations." The "glorious women of Iraq participated in the first formations of the popular resistance." Some of those women carried out "martyrdom operations, the first of which was the heroic operation carried out by two women in Baghdad on the third day of the occupation; another operation was carried out by a glorious Iraqi woman in Al-Nassiriyah south of Iraq."

The "third chapter is sustaining the resistance and continuing the battle until the liberation of Iraq."

Addouri said that during the occupation more than one million and three hundred thousand Iraqis fell martyrs, and "so far the number of Al-Baath martyrs in this battle amounts to one hundred and twenty thousand."

He sees "this historic decisive showdown," which he described as "the holy battle," as the "fate and the responsibility of Al-Baath as much as it is the responsibility of the great people of Iraq, and the free people of our (Arab) nation and humanity as a whole," all who were "targeted by the invasion."

* Ready to negotiate U.S. withdrawal

Addouri sounded definitely confident of victory and reiterated that the U.S. -led occupation has already been defeated, and "in despair is looking for an exit." The resistance "has destroyed the alliance of evil, the parties of which are escaping one after another. Only (U.S. President George W.) Bush remains blundering in his debacle," he said.

Replying to questions about the truth in media reports that there were "contacts between you and the Americans," whether he made any "direct or indirect contact with official U.S. authorities," whether "you are willing to negotiate with the Americans" and if the answer was positive "what are your negotiating terms," "would you lead the negotiations personally" or would authorize others to negotiate, would such negotiations be bilateral (between Al-Baath and the U.S. ) or in the name of the resistance "front," and whether he was sure that the yield of the negotiations would correspond to the real weight of the resistance on the ground, "as the saying goes, you cannot reach at the negotiating table farther than your artillery can reach," Addouri said:

"Friends and foes" are very well aware of our strategy, which was made public by the media; "Al-Baath doesn't negotiate with anybody at all if they don't recognize this strategy beforehand, and will negotiate neither with America nor with intermediaries or friends except on this basis. If the enemy recognized this strategy we will sit with them directly, negotiate with them, and help them exit our country without loosing face and will facilitate their exit. Prior to this recognition, there are no negotiations with the occupying enemy."

"Al-Baath will meet with whoever it decides to meet, except with the Zionist entity (Israel) and the government of collaborators in the Green Zone … We will be happy when the enemy is convinced of its defeat, accepts our strategy, sits with us to negotiate a program for its implementation," he added.

Addouri detailed his strategy, indicating that "any negotiations with the invaders without it represents a desertion and treason, and is refused by all national, Pan-Arab and Islamic factions of the resistance."

(1) An official pronounced recognition of the armed and unarmed national resistance, including all its factions and (political) parties, as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Iraq.

(2) An official declaration of unconditional withdrawal from Iraq by the U.S. leadership.

(3) Declaring null and void all the political and legislative institutions, as well as all the laws and legislations issued by them, since the occupation, with the deBaathization law in the forefront, and compensating all who were adversely affected by them.

(4) A stop to raids, prosecutions, arrests, killings and displacement.

(5) Release of all prisoners of war (POWs), prisoners and detainees without exception and compensating all for their physical and psychological damage.

(6) Reinstating the army and the national security forces in service in accordance with their pre-occupation laws and regulations, and compensating all who were adversely affected by dissolving them.

(7) A pledge to compensate Iraq for all the material and moral losses it incurred because of the occupation.

* Iraqi tactics of guerrilla war

Addouri detailed his concept of "the people's war of liberation and the guerilla war," advised the resistance fighters to "adhere to the principles and rules" of this kind of war and listed fifteen "most effective" tactics to hurt the enemy. First, he said, "appear quickly behind, in front and on the sides of the enemy as dictated by the nature of the place, time, climate of the operation, and the type and nature of the target, then hit quickly and disappear quickly before the enemy could have time to react."

Second, "In planning, implementing and selecting of the target take care to hit a kill in the enemy," he added. Third, "your weapon is your life, so take care to keep it always ready and away from the eyes of the enemy and its spies." Four, "protect the security of information … as a red line or a holy matter" and trust nobody "because trust is endless in society."

Five, "the enemy is blind without spies, so exert all efforts to disclose and liquidate them." Six, "don't be taken away by your successive victories" or attracted by "showing off" or loose your self-control by praise of your heroic acts, to be a big mouth boasting of your success, "noting that the enemy is hunting you at all times, so keep discreet, disguised and vigilant."

Seven, "inflict the biggest losses in the ranks of the enemy and decrease to the minimum your own losses." Eight "make your hands heavy at the enemy during their rest hours" and make "no place safe" for them and give them no time to recover."

Nine, "the supply lines are the enemy's lifeline," so "concentrate on and cut" these lines. Ten, "concentrate on the enemy's bases, camps and headquarters day and night" to "break its morale." Eleven, "take your time to deal with high extreme accuracy with the traitors and spies to avoid hurting innocents."

Twelve, "expand the circle of monitoring, following up and hunting the enemy … so it doesn't surprise us." Thirteen, "sustain your traditional ties with your relatives, neighbors, neighborhood and friends and make these ties deeper and more intimate, but don't make any of them feel you have a mission they don't understand" and "help them to overcome the details of daily life hardships, which are so many nowadays" so they will protect you when in trouble and don't hand you over to the enemy; they are "your safe armor and honest cover."

Fourteen, "let belief in God … be our strong starting point." Fifteen, "fight for the sake of God the enemies of God … until the tyrant … invaders are defeated, until the clear-cut victory, the liberation of the homeland, and raising the flag of 'There Is No God but The God' and bringing back the 'Flag of God Is the Greatest' to fly in Iraq skies," Addouri confirmed.

* Other excerpts:

Manaf: It is noted that the Iraqi resistance started immediately after the desecration of the Iraq land by the U.S. forces. How could it (the resistance) have started and grown so quickly?

Addouri: "Al-Baath Arab Socialist Party is the party of Iraq and the Arab nation … It did not lay arms or stop fighting even for an hour during day and night… It wasn't surprised by what happened, but increased … its determination not to be exhausted to relentlessly fight the invaders, their stooges and spies whatever the sacrifices are and regardless of how long it would take until full victory and the liberation of Iraq."

* Role of army rank and file

Manaf: What role the officers and ranks of the Iraqi armed forces play in resistance?

Addouri: Today they play "a heroic and decisive role in the march of the resistance. In addition to their fighting role through their own formations … under the flag of the General Command of the Armed Forces, they are, in accordance with the guidance of the party' (Al-Baath) leadership and the General Command of the Armed Forces, dispersed into other resistance factions where they act as field commanders, planners, technicians, makers and developers of most of the various weapons of the resistance. They represent the soul of the resistance and the secret of its innovations, accurate performance and victories."

* New 'unprecedented' methods

Manaf: What distinguishes the Iraqi resistance? How was it able to fight the occupier in open areas?

Addouri: "The resistance depended on the rules and principles of people's wars and the guerrilla war, after developing its fighting methods and tactics, and was innovative in its logistic and special operations. More important, it has adapted the Iraqi environment to serve the people's war. Through practice, it has developed" those rules very much "to move quickly" so to make "all the land is ours and all the time is ours," and to be up to date to what is new by the enemy in order to "confront it with innovative new of our own."

"We have made and innovated new ways and methods unprecedented in the people's wars of liberation, or even in the intelligence sciences … I cannot go into more details for security reasons; this is what kept the resistance" and its leadership a " mysterious secret, humiliating the enemy, its collaborators and spies."

* Al-Baath live and … recruiting

Manaf: Do your resistance formations disperse equally to cover the area of Iraq now or they are concentrated in certain areas and governorates?

Addouri: "The party (Al-Baath) is more than half a century old in Iraq … the organization of Al-Baath today … is stronger many times than it was before the occupation … (I will not elaborate) for reasons Al-Baath will speak out on time." Today the party disperses in all the cities, villages, plains, mountains and deserts of Iraq; outside Iraq it also disperses among Iraqis wherever they are in every Arab or foreign country."

After the occupation, despite "the strict conditions" for joining the party and the deBaathization campaign, "thousands joined the party, mostly young people aged between 16 and 25. Tens of thousands of other Iraqis joined the resistance factions led by Al-Baath."

"In the end the National, Pan-Arab and Islamic Front emerged; Al-Baath is one of its basic pillars."

* No outside Support

Manaf: The Iraqi resistance is unique in the fact that it has no Arab, regional or international incubator or support; how could Al-Baath have provided for sustaining the resistance strong and escalating?

Addouri: "Our resistance … not only has no incubator outside the borders of its country, but what is worse and more bitter is that 99 percent of the influential world powers are either directly involved with the enemy against it or sympathize with the enemy; the one percent, which sympathizes with the resistance, turned its back to it fearing its enemies, but God provided for it and made it in no need for them. The people of Iraq have provided their money and offspring; it is an inexhaustible source."

Manaf: Some say the role of Al-Baath in the resistance is limited. What is the size of the Al-Baath-led resistance?

Addouri: "The occupying enemy and its regional and local partners have launched a genocide against the Baathists, their families, supporters and sympathizers. The collaborators' constitution, which was prepared by the CIA, includes a Nazi racist article stipulating the liquidation of Al-Baath as an organization, thought and persons."

"They targeted by physical liquidation, destruction and displacement the society of the party to the sixth neighbor."

"One of the most important and dangerous deBaathization methods, after assassinations and physical liquidation of Baathists, is the attempt to completely censor the role of Al-Baath on the field as a resisting party and an armed resistance, and to smear it image and role."

"Had Al-Baath not been the initiator of resistance since the first day of the invasion and occupation, and had it not acted as if the battle is its own and the cause is its own cause, the world could not have seen the emergence of the strongest national resistance immediately following the invasion."

"The other resistance factions emerged after the resistance was deeply rooted in confronting the occupier and undermining its strategy; some of them were formed and started to act three years after the occupation.

* Operations documented on CDs

"The backbone" of the "wide and strong base of Jihad today is the resistance of Al-Baath and the national, Pan-Arab and Islamic forces, with those members of the Higher Command of Jihad and Liberation in the forefront, who cover the whole area of Iraq," from Um-Qaser in the south to Zakho in the north and from al-Qaem in the west to Khanqeen and Mandali in the east.

This resistance is targeted by imposing a media, economic and political siege on it to black out its military operations, political activities and its destructive physical and psychological influence on the soldiers of the occupying power and its forces in Iraq.

"Don't you see how the invaders, collaborators, traitors, spies, renegades … despite their differences on many other things, have agreed to censor its role and action and instead inflated … the claim that it (the resistance) is terrorism?"

"I have documented over the past five years on CDs thousands of operations against the enemy … while the enemy is highlighting the role of other groups, some of which was directly formed or via intermediaries by the occupation itself, and some other were formed by foreign powers hostile to Iraq … who kill the people on ID" (Addouri explicitly was referring to sectarian militias formed by Iran, but did not mention Iran by name).

* Pluralistic future system

Manaf: How do you perceive the ongoing political process in Iraq? What is you comment on reported reconciliation conferences under the auspices of the League of Arab States?

Addouri: "No truce with those … and (we'll) resist whatever entity is established under occupation and in its service, first among them the traitors' government in the Green Zone."

Manaf: Do you have a strategy to administer the ruling of Iraq after the liberation?

Addouri: Since the first day of the occupation Al-Baath called for "the unity of the resistance as a historical necessity." With endeavor and persistence the party succeeded in forming the "National, Pan-Arab and Islamic Front in 2005" then the "Jihad and Liberation Front for armed factions (33 armed resistance factions according to him) on the field in September 2007. Both fronts are open to all anti-occupation armed and political forces" to achieve more unity during the liberation and post-liberation.

Al-Baath has never adopted a one-party stance; it doesn't "believe in and refuses the one party theory." However in the past, and "for objective circumstances," it offered "the theory of the leading party."

"Al-Baath deeply and principally believes in the creation of a pluralistic national democratic system in which power is democratically rotated on the basis of ballot boxes through free, transparent and fair elections."

Every deviation from this in the past "falls within the context of the mistakes" of the Al-Baath march.

* Committed to Kurdish autonomy

Manaf: What is your program to deal with the Kurdish question after liberation?

Addouri: "We are confident that our Kurdish people will not get their national and cultural rights … except within the unity of … a free, liberated, independent and prosperous Iraq … Al-Baath Party will remain committed to the historical March 1970 statement and the 1974 Law of Autonomy as the basis for dealing with the national, cultural and political rights of our Kurdish people in Iraq."

Manaf: Recently the anti-U.S. occupation "Freedom and Justice Party of Kurdistan" was publicly founded; what role do you expect this party to play in Kurdistan?

Addouri: Two Kurdish parties were founded in the name of freedom and justice party of Kurdistan, one chaired by Johar al-Hirki, the son of a prominent Iraqi Kurdish family, which is loyal to the people of Iraq, and the other chaired by the "brother fighter" Arshad Zibari. Both have made a lot of sacrifices from their families and tribes against the occupation and in defense of Iraq freedom and independence.

"The birth of both parties will contribute to strengthening and expanding the Kurdish national movement against the occupation and its stooges."

-- Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian trrritories.

[Freak Out]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/41514.html

General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 18, 2008 08:34:09 PM

WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.

A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, had no comment.

Taguba didn't respond to a request for further comment relayed via a spokesman.

The group Physicians for Human Rights, which compiled the new report, described it as the most in-depth medical and psychological examination of former detainees to date.

Doctors and mental health experts examined 11 detainees held for long periods in the prison system that President Bush established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. All of them eventually were released without charges.

The doctors and experts determined that the men had been subject to cruelties that ranged from isolation, sleep deprivation and hooding to electric shocks, beating and, in one case, being forced to drink urine.

Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.

"All credible allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, those responsible are held accountable," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. The Defense Department responds to concerns raised by the International Committee for the Red Cross, he said, which has access to detainees under military control.

"It adds little to the public discourse to draw sweeping conclusions based upon dubious allegations regarding remote medical assessments of former detainees, now far removed from detention," Gordon said.

The physicians' group said that its experts, who had experience studying torture's effects, spent two days with each former captive and conducted intensive exams and interviews. They administered tests to detect exaggeration. In two of the 11 cases, the group was able to review medical records.

The report, "Broken Laws, Broken Lives," concurs with a five-part McClatchy investigation of Guantanamo published this week. Among its findings were that abuses occurred — primarily at prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were held en route to Guantanamo — and that many of the prisoners were wrongly detained.

Also this week, a probe by the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed how senior Pentagon officials pushed for harsher interrogation methods over the objections of top military lawyers. Those methods later surfaced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld didn't specifically approve of the worst abuses, but neither he nor the White House enforced strict limits on how detainees would be treated.

There was no "bright line of abuse which could not be transgressed," former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora told the Senate committee.

Leonard Rubenstein, the president of Physicians for Human Rights, said there was a direct connection between the Pentagon decisions and the abuses his group uncovered. "The result was a horrific stew of pain, degradation and ... suffering," he said.

Detainee abuse has been documented previously, in photos from Abu Ghraib, accounts by former detainees and their lawyers and a confidential report by the International Committee for the Red Cross that was leaked to the U.S. news media.

Of the 11 men evaluated in the Physicians for Human Rights report, four were detained in Afghanistan between late 2001 and early 2003, and later sent to Guantanamo. The remaining seven were detained in Iraq in 2003.

One of the Iraqis, identified by the pseudonym Laith, was arrested with his family at his Baghdad home in the early morning of Oct. 19, 2003. He was taken to a location where he was beaten, stripped to his underwear and threatened with execution, the report says.

"Laith" told the examiners he was then taken to a second site, where he was photographed in humiliating positions and given electric shocks to his genitals.

Finally, he was taken to Abu Ghraib, where he spent the first 35 to 40 days in isolation in a small cage, enduring being suspended in the cage and other "stress positions."

He was released on June 24, 2004, without charge.

[oregonpackfan]

"Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.
:roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.
:roll:

The United States doesn't, but he, cheney and rummy did. It is a subtle difference. The sentence was parsed by Yoo.

[Freak Out]

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world’s dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.

While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world’s oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.

The Iraqi government’s stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency.

For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.

It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.

A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be engaged in. “We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the south through gas gathering and utilization,” said the spokeswoman, Marnie Funk. “The contents of the proposal are confidential.”

While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies.

“The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,” Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm’s Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals.

Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq’s oil reserves would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating with Western companies.

Yet at today’s oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.

David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq’s output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.

Mr. Fyfe’s organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq’s output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices.

The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.

A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.

The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions.

The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry.

They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.

“These are not actually service contracts,” Ms. Benali said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.

A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.

Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. “Because of that, they got the priority,” he said.

In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support contract for that field, one of the companies’ officials said.

The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra. There, the Russian company Lukoil, which claims a Hussein-era contract for the field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment.

Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an extension of the earlier work without charge.

To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all have proved contentious.

The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil companies in Iraq.

The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output.

While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies’ previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world’s largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back.

But a spokesman for Exxon said the company’s approach to Iraq was no different from its work elsewhere.

“Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would in other countries in which we are permitted to operate,” the spokesman, Len D’Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement.

But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”

James Glanz and Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York.

[oregonpackfan]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq desperately needs foreign investment and expertise to modernize their decrepit oil industry. It is WONDERFUL that the Iraqi government is acting responsibly, rather than nationalizing the whole industry in a self-destructive spasm of nationalism.


The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It is certainly true that the oil resources of the middle east are the most compelling reason why we are in Iraq. You don't see us worrying too much about democracy and stability in the Congo.

Your implication that we are in Iraq so that some oil companies can sign deals is preposterous. These deals are tiny, and there is no gaurantee that they will continue or grow larger in the future. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the investment in stabilizing Iraq will dwarf any profits the oil companies can squeeze out.

Our concern about oil in the mideast is that it keeps flowing. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. How dumb do you think those Arabs are?

[texaspackerbacker]

Very true, Harlan.

[Freak Out]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq desperately needs foreign investment and expertise to modernize their decrepit oil industry. It is WONDERFUL that the Iraqi government is acting responsibly, rather than nationalizing the whole industry in a self-destructive spasm of nationalism.


The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It is certainly true that the oil resources of the middle east are the most compelling reason why we are in Iraq. You don't see us worrying too much about democracy and stability in the Congo.

Your implication that we are in Iraq so that some oil companies can sign deals is preposterous. These deals are tiny, and there is no gaurantee that they will continue or grow larger in the future. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the investment in stabilizing Iraq will dwarf any profits the oil companies can squeeze out.

Our concern about oil in the mideast is that it keeps flowing. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. How dumb do you think those Arabs are?

These companies are in Iran, Burma and the Congo so why not Iraq? Chad anyone? If it can speed the modernization of the fields in Iraq and it helps fund the rebuilding of the country and not the military its all good. The oil biz has always had dirty/bloody hands and that is not going to change anytime soon.

[Freak Out]

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It was a big reason OPF...but not the only one. Secret energy task force meeting anyone? :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

The other countries bidding on oil contracts were Iran, China and Russia. If they had gotten the deals instead of the U.S. & Britian, the anti-war people would have celebrated the sharp stick in the eye of the U.S.

I think that the anti-war people should not worry so much about being right. They had 4 years to bask in the stumbling and failures of the Bush administration. That's enough. The party's over. Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

[mraynrand]

Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Harlan, What happened with you? You seem so consistenly sensible these days.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you will find I become very stupid when we don't agree. I'm funny that way.

[Scott Campbell]

Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Harlan, What happened with you? You seem so consistenly sensible these days.


Ask him about taxes. Or poster's rights.

[oregonpackfan]

[. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. [/quote]

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

[mraynrand]

The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant.

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

You're wrong, Oregon. They, like all businesses, are there to provide goods and services at the lowest cost possible, with the least amount of return for their investment. To do otherwise would place them outside the mainstream business flow. Businesses think charity first, profit second. Always.

[MJZiggy]

Sarcasm noted, but you have to admit that sometimes companies take the smaller, more charitable contract now in hopes of the megadeal later.

[texaspackerbacker]

The other countries bidding on oil contracts were Iran, China and Russia. If they had gotten the deals instead of the U.S. & Britian, the anti-war people would have celebrated the sharp stick in the eye of the U.S.

I think that the anti-war people should not worry so much about being right. They had 4 years to bask in the stumbling and failures of the Bush administration. That's enough. The party's over. Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Exactly. And people question it when I say anti-war is pretty much synonymous for anti-American--with the exception of a very few truly naive dove types.

The salient point here is that there was a level playing field--no discrimination against American companies, favoritism for Shi'ite Iran, etc. In that kind of a context, the larger and more efficient American producers should be able to get the contracts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant.

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

Yes, I agree, from the oil company's perspective, there is potential for big money down the road. But the money is not big from our government's perspective, we're investing thousands of dollars for every nickle the oil companies are likely to ever extract in profits (wild guess, but i suspect that is how it will play out, and northing is certain.)

I agree with your point that the war was driven largely by oil. But not in the sense of our country capturing oil profits, the numbers don't make sense for that theory. We just want the oil to flow. (Unless you believe the war was driven by corrupt politicians payed-off by the oil companies.)

[bobblehead]

This war was driven by the same thing the first gulf war was driven by. Maniacal radicals getting nuclear technology. We didn't want saddam to have it, and we don't want Ahmedinijad having it. Both countries were ramping up efforts before we invaded the region, and we intervened. In this case Iran is too big to flat out take on like we did Iraq so we used a different strategy, we are trying to democracize both sides of it and defeat them politically.

Oil has had absolutely nothing to do with this war, it would have been much easier and cheaper to take on the green freaks and produce our own energy....which we should have done and in the process we could have economically crippled Iran, but politicians aren't smart enough to think that way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This war was driven by the same thing the first gulf war was driven by. Maniacal radicals getting nuclear technology. We didn't want saddam to have it, and we don't want Ahmedinijad having it. .

Ahmedinijad has very limited powers in Iran. And Iran is likely to get nuclear weapons despite the best efforts the U.S. and international community. We will have to live with it.


Oil has had absolutely nothing to do with this war, it would have been much easier and cheaper to take on the green freaks and produce our own energy

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

[HarveyWallbangers]

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

I don't think he's talking about the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out."

[texaspackerbacker]

It's as naive to say oil had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq as to say it had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Sure, the well publicized WMD thing had something to do with it--validly--the prospect of a nuclear armed radical Muslim enemy, or even one with bio/chem means of mass murder. Likewise, the lofty goal of spreading American-style freedom, representative democracy, and free enterprise capitalism by establishing a shining example in the midst of the mostly tyrannical and socialist Muslim world also was a valid part of it. But you just can't ignore good ol' SELF INTEREST--that pro-American aspect that elitist liberals tend to look down on as somehow unsavory. In today's context, OIL is the primary element of that American self interest. And having a fair and level bidding structure where American companies can win contracts is a major part of that.

This would NOT happen without, as the thread title says, the Corner Being Turned in Iraq. It also would NOT happen with an Obama presidency--that would first, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, and second, subscribe to the anti-American concept that there is something wrong with anything good happening to America and Americans.

[Harlan Huckleby]

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

I don't think he's talking about the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out."

He's trying to say that people who oppose drilling in Anwar are whacky. And I matched this stupid generalization with another stupid generalization.

Most of what passes for "debate" is just trying to paint the opposition as a cartoon character.

[mraynrand]

Most of what passes for "debate" is just trying to paint the opposition as a cartoon character.

If so, I want to be the Road Runner. BEEP BEEP!

[texaspackerbacker]

Would you settle for the idea that "opposing drilling in ANWAR is putting environmental issues ahead of the security and economy of this country", Harlan? Notice, I resisted the temptation to say "wacko" environmentalist.

If you accept that concept, how is opposition then NOT "wacky"?

Or is putting the interests of caribou, polar bears, and tundra grass ahead of the lives and quality of life of Americans something you would consider sane and OK?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Would you settle for the idea that "opposing drilling in ANWAR is putting environmental issues ahead of the security and economy of this country", Harlan? Notice, I resisted the temptation to say "wacko" environmentalist.

If you accept that exploiting every opportunity to drill for oil is critical to our national security and economy, then yes, anyone who opposes moving ahead with drilling must be whacky and wrong-headed.

But of course its your premise that is whacky and wrong-headed.

This little war of words started when BobbleHead referred to the "green freaks", and I mocked his resort to a name-calling debate by referring to "right wing wackos."

Harvey moved-in to cover for Bobble by refering to 'the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out.'" I say this "normal", reasonable person perfectly describes an environmentalist. But Harvey is trying to say Bobblehead speaks for a different normal, reasonable person - a Bush voter, no doubt.

This discussion is silly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don't read this NY Times editorial, it is a waste of your time:

Iraq Oil Rush

Published: June 22, 2008
So great is the demand for oil today — and so great the concern over rising prices — that it would be tempting to uncritically embrace plans by major Western oil companies to return to Iraq.

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back (June 19, 2008) Unfortunately, the evolving deals could well rekindle understandable suspicions in the Arab world about oil being America’s real reason for invading Iraq and fan even more distrust and resentment among Iraq’s competing religious and ethnic factions.

As reported by Andrew Kramer in The Times, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — are in the final stages of discussions that will let them formally re-enter Iraq’s oil market, which expelled them 36 years ago. The contracts also include Chevron.

Iraq can certainly use the modern technology and skills these oil giants offer. Although Iraq’s oil reserves are among the world’s largest, years of United Nations sanctions and war have badly eroded the industry. Government officials say they aim to increase production from 2.5 million barrels of oil a day to 3 million barrels. That is a minor increase in global terms, but with oil at $140 a barrel, it is good news for Iraqis, who need the money to rebuild their war-torn country.

We cannot blame Baghdad for wanting to get on with exploiting the country’s lucrative oil deposits, especially when Kurds in northern Iraq are rapidly signing contracts to develop oil fields in their own semiautonomous region. Still, the negotiating process pursued by Baghdad is flawed and troubling.

The contracts are being let without competitive bidding to companies that since the American invasion have been quietly advising Iraq’s oil ministry how to increase production. While the contracts are limited to refurbishing equipment and technical support and last only two years, they would give these companies an inside track on vastly more lucrative long-term deals.

Given that corruption is an acknowledged problem in Iraq’s government, the contracts would have more legitimacy if the bidding were open to all and the process more transparent. Iraqis must apply that standard when they let contracts for long-term oil field development.

Also troubling is that the deals were made even though Iraq’s parliament has failed to adopt oil and revenue sharing laws — critical political benchmarks set by the Bush administration. That is evidence of continued deep divisions in Iraq over whether oil should be controlled by central or regional government, whether international oil companies should be involved in development and how the profits should be distributed.

The United States and the oil companies must encourage Iraqi officials to make the political compromises needed to establish in law the rules for managing Iraq’s abundant natural resources with as much transparency as possible. Otherwise, oil will just become one more centripetal force pulling the country apart.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just found that editorial so bizarre. They are mad because companies from U.S., Britian and France got the contracts!? The main competitor was Russia. They are mad because the Russians lost out? The Russians supported Saddam Hussein to the bitter end.

The NY Times complain that the Iraqi gov is corrupt, the Americans were given an inside track. Who has a magic wand to fix this?

And what is their other complaint .. oh, ya, Iraq hasn't signed an oil law. Everybody wants them to come to a consensus, especially the Iraqis themselves. So they are not supposed to develop their oil wealth until the politics are finalized?

This is one of the dumbest editorials ever written.

[bobblehead]

just to clarify harlen (cuz I respect you and don't want you to think I was being a dick) I MEANT green freaks...I wasn't name calling, I meant the extreme left wing environmentalists who take it to an extreme. I didn't mean normal reasonable conservationists (which I consider myself one).

I meant it in the way you would say homophobes....those that scream homosexuality is a sin against man and they should be banished.

I consider both of them not really identifiable by party (although THEY would) but pretty much outside of 85% of the population.

[texaspackerbacker]

I just found that editorial so bizarre. They are mad because companies from U.S., Britian and France got the contracts!? The main competitor was Russia. They are mad because the Russians lost out? The Russians supported Saddam Hussein to the bitter end.

The NY Times complain that the Iraqi gov is corrupt, the Americans were given an inside track. Who has a magic wand to fix this?

And what is their other complaint .. oh, ya, Iraq hasn't signed an oil law. Everybody wants them to come to a consensus, especially the Iraqis themselves. So they are not supposed to develop their oil wealth until the politics are finalized?

This is one of the dumbest editorials ever written.

Glad to see you post this. I thought at first you were endorsing the Times editorial. The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

Regarding your other post, Harlan, the words "wacko" (preferred spelling according to Webster) and "environmentalist" just kinda go together. The alternative is to conclude that they are NOT wacky, and thus, that they KNOW how pro-socialist and deleterious to America and western capitalism in general--and anti-humanity in general--the crap they spew actually is. Therefore, it's giving them the benefit of the doubt to call them "wacky".

[mraynrand]

The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was scratching my head thinking "I thought they solved the oil revenue problem." OK, it's not perfect, but they keep getting things done over there, and the it's either ignored or lied about by the so-called MSM. Plus, how often do you see a front page story in any newspaper or on any News program about conspicuous bravery in Iraq? Does any one actually report on the positives, other than Britt Hume, and less often, Jim Leher?

This is where Bush completely dropped the ball. He should have given televised Oval office talks to the American people, with maps showing where the troops had secured stability, etc. He should have introduced servicemen that had made a difference in the various provinces. It would have honored their efforts and it would have forced the rest of us to take notice of what is going on over there, good or bad.

[bobblehead]

The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was scratching my head thinking "I thought they solved the oil revenue problem." OK, it's not perfect, but they keep getting things done over there, and the it's either ignored or lied about by the so-called MSM. Plus, how often do you see a front page story in any newspaper or on any News program about conspicuous bravery in Iraq? Does any one actually report on the positives, other than Britt Hume, and less often, Jim Leher?

This is where Bush completely dropped the ball. He should have given televised Oval office talks to the American people, with maps showing where the troops had secured stability, etc. He should have introduced servicemen that had made a difference in the various provinces. It would have honored their efforts and it would have forced the rest of us to take notice of what is going on over there, good or bad.

Bush and republicans are "doers", the left and clinton are "promoters". I remember clinton having big news conferences with kids surrounding him as he vetoed or signed bills. Without baggin on the left too much, that kind of thing is all hat and no cattle. I see it all the time with marketing efforts, people are selling the most goddamned stupid shit/services, but the marketing is good and they are successful. Bush will never market a war, he is in the business of getting results, not winning PR wars....its the main reason the democrats have had any success in the TV/information era.

Ever been to the palms in Las Vegas...you know, home of celebrities? There really aren't all that many celebrities there and the place is a virtual dump compared to any casino in its revenue class....but they are wildly successful because they sell an image real well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard a couple interesting factoids in an Iraq discussion. There about 130,00 Sunni's who have joined the "Sons of Iraq" militias organized by the U.S. There are an equal number of Sunnis wanting to join! Apparently it is nice work if you can get it.

The Shitte government, for its part, wants to cut the militia in half. Dumb. Well, I can see why they want to grow the Army rather than militias, but they better find a way to pay-off those weekend warriors and wannabees.

The point is that Iraq is still in a VERY fragile state politically. They really need the U.S. there for several years to serve as an independent referee and meld the parties together.

Obama is the agent of hope, we have to hope he will extend his blessing to Iraq too.

The other interesting tidbit was about the recent negotiations with Iraq over future bases and such. Most of what has been reported is about what the U.S. wants (a lot of control) and Iraq doesn't want to give. The other half is that Iraq wants MORE security guarantees than the U.S. is prepared to give! Iraq wants it written in stone that the U.S. will intervene if a conflict breaks out with Iran or Saudi ARabia. The Iraqis remain leary of IRan, even though they have close relations.

It sounds like the Iraqis want it all their way. How shocking! :lol: They want us to do a lot for them in a very subordinate role. Of course our position is to have everything our way, too. Sounds like a marriage.

[texaspackerbacker]

Put a "ditto cam" in the Oval Office.

Wouldn't THAT have been fun during the Clinton years?

[Freak Out]

U.S.-allied Iraqi politician kills 2 U.S. troops, wounds 4
Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: June 23, 2008 07:50:20 PM

MADAIN, Iraq — A U.S.-allied Iraqi council member sprayed American troops with gunfire Monday, killing two soldiers and wounding three and an interpreter, Iraqi authorities and witnesses said. The attack occurred minutes after they emerged from a weekly joint meeting on reconstruction in this volatile town southeast of Baghdad.

Raed Mahmoud Ajil, a former high school principal in his mid-40s, was known as a respected city council member and devoted educator who'd recently returned to Iraq after completing his master's degree in India, stunned colleagues said. U.S. troops shot and killed him at the scene.

Ajil's colleagues said they could think of no motive for the deadly rampage, which is thought to be the first incident of a U.S.-allied Iraqi politician carrying out such an attack. Ajil comes from a distinguished Sunni Muslim family. His brother is security chief for the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and a cousin is a high-ranking judge, relatives said.

Ajil's family said that he'd suffered from bouts of depression and sporadic epileptic seizures, which he masked in his role as a public servant. Relatives knew him to be friendly to U.S. troops and said he had no qualms about working alongside them, even though many in this mixed Sunni-Shiite Muslim town view American forces as occupiers.

"(The Americans) used to love him. They gave him a contract for a project he was working on. He spoke English fluently with them and they used to like him so much," said Sherif Abdullah Aziz, 47, a cousin. "There is no explanation that we know of for what happened."

Fadil Ahmed Abed, a Sunni council member who was formerly the chairman, said members of the council met with the Americans at about 10 a.m. after a ceremony to open a new city park. Abed said Ajil had sat silent during the meeting except when his signature was required for a school maintenance project. The meeting ran until about 1 p.m. As the Americans were walking out of the heavily guarded council headquarters, the shootings began.

"I was in the building. We heard gunshots followed by heavy shooting from the Americans. We tried to go out, but the troops stopped us," Abed said. "After that, the Americans came to us and said that council member Raed attacked U.S. soldiers."

"The reason behind this is absolutely unknown," Abed added. "The meeting was very routine. There were suggestions about reconstruction and about schools."

The U.S. military command in Baghdad would confirm only that two American soldiers were killed and three others were wounded, along with an interpreter, as they were leaving the city council building in Madain.

Abed didn't witness the shootings, but he said that authorities had told him that Ajil had walked out of the building with the Americans, rushed over to his truck and returned with an assault rifle. Neither the local authorities nor the U.S. military could offer details on the circumstances of the shootings. At 5 p.m., the scene of the attack was still littered with bullet casings, puddles of blood and a camouflage protective pad that's part of a U.S. soldier's uniform.

A married father of three, Ajil was elected to the council in 2003 as an independent, relatives and colleagues said. In 2004, when sectarian violence in the town halted reconstruction, the city council was dissolved and many members fled or were killed.

Ajil left Iraq to complete his master's degree in India, returning frequently to check on his family and city, colleagues and relatives said. He'd returned for good only in the past week and had resumed his civic work. Abed said the council had yet to be fully reinstalled, though the members showed up for regularly scheduled meetings.

Ajil's colleagues said that his life was focused on education; he'd graduated from Baghdad University and served as a high school principal for four years. He was the chairman of the council's education committee. Relatives said he'd struggled with depression since his youth and had stabbed a relative in a sudden fit of rage in 2000.

"When he talks to you, he's very polite, an educated man, respectful," said Aziz, his cousin. "But back at home, he would go and close the door to his room and stay there for two days."

For decades, archaeologists have descended on Madain, an ancient town along the Tigris River that was home to the early cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, however, Madain has been a breeding ground for sectarian tensions. At its worst, the bloodshed shut down most public life.

In recent months, U.S. and Iraqi authorities have reduced the violence with an increased Iraqi military presence and the formation of U.S.-backed militias, known as awakening councils, to help American forces in the fight against Sunni and Shiite extremists. Abed praised Iraqi troops' reaction to the incident, saying that they'd protected terrified politicians in the building and escorted them to safety.

Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil's killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, "God rest his soul," and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, "the pigs deserved this."

Ajil's body is in a morgue; his funeral is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

(McClatchy special correspondent Dulaimy reported from Madain, Allam from Baghdad.)

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

[Freak Out]

I heard a couple interesting factoids in an Iraq discussion. There about 130,00 Sunni's who have joined the "Sons of Iraq" militias organized by the U.S. There are an equal number of Sunnis wanting to join! Apparently it is nice work if you can get it.

The Shitte government, for its part, wants to cut the militia in half. Dumb. Well, I can see why they want to grow the Army rather than militias, but they better find a way to pay-off those weekend warriors and wannabees.


Hmmmm....lets see....why would the majority Shiite central government be worried about a US backed Sunni militia numbering in the hundreds of thousands? Beats me?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard a couple interesting factoids in an Iraq discussion. There about 130,00 Sunni's who have joined the "Sons of Iraq" militias organized by the U.S. There are an equal number of Sunnis wanting to join! Apparently it is nice work if you can get it.

The Shitte government, for its part, wants to cut the militia in half. Dumb. Well, I can see why they want to grow the Army rather than militias, but they better find a way to pay-off those weekend warriors and wannabees.

Hmmmm....lets see....why would the majority Shiite central government be worried about a US backed Sunni militia numbering in the hundreds of thousands? Beats me?

OK, fair enough. But the Shitte gov is not moving aggressively to recruit Sunni into the regular army, either. (There are some Sunni, but not a representative portion.

I think the U.S. is playing for time. Time for the parties to build relationships. The strategy is working, but could all fall apart.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Anti-U.S. sentiment remains widespread, with many locals viewing the American presence as an intrusion. As news of Ajil's killings spread, some residents hailed him as a hero. Several uttered his name and added, "God rest his soul," and a taxi driver at the scene pointed to the bloodstains and said, "the pigs deserved this."

The U.S. has been the fool in Iraq for too long. The Iraqi politicans play a double game. They say they want the occupiers out, but not just now. How perfect for them: they get the benefit of U.S. protection, yet don't have to oppose the resentful portion of the population. This sends a signal that it is understandable if an Iraqi citizen might kill an American soldier now and then.

I hope the current negotiations over status of forces makes the Iraqi government make a choice. I think the U.S. should DEMAND a clear endorsement of the U.S. presence from the leadership as part of such an agreement. Force the parliament members to clearly choose sides.

[Freak Out]

The Iraqi Parliament should be the first step...show the country that they want us to stay for a set number of years or to start withdrawing now. If they vote for us to stay then they can hash out the details.
I saw a series of interviews with the Iraqi public and the majority firmly believed that the US was not going to relinquish control of the country and that we were basically a colonial power.

[texaspackerbacker]

Not to mention any names, but some sick pieces of shit glory in promoting small bits of bad news while ignoring the vast array of good.

Like the thread title says, the Corner has been Turned. Only electing Obama can give American leftists their wish of an American defeat now.

[Freak Out]

Here we go again. It looks like the Iraqi Army can't even hold Mosul. We'll have to go pick up the pieces....again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here we go again. It looks like the Iraqi Army can't even hold Mosul. We'll have to go pick up the pieces....again.

mosul area is the last refuge of sunni insurgents, the fact that they were able to set off a car bomb there is no reason to despair. The Iraqi Army hasn't even had a presence there until recently, I don't think. The area was cleaned-up by a U.S. offensive over last 6 months.

BTW, one thing that happened in Mosul in the last year or two is that tens of thousands of Kurds were cleansed from the western half of the city. I'm not sure why the Kurds didn't move-in with their militias, guess they are willing to cede the area. It seems that Mosul will be the main Sunni city in Iraq.

[Freak Out]

Here we go again. It looks like the Iraqi Army can't even hold Mosul. We'll have to go pick up the pieces....again.

mosul area is the last refuge of sunni insurgents, the fact that they were able to set off a car bomb there is no reason to despair. The Iraqi Army hasn't even had a presence there until recently, I don't think. The area was cleaned-up by a U.S. offensive over last 6 months.

BTW, one thing that happened in Mosul in the last year or two is that tens of thousands of Kurds were cleansed from the western half of the city. I'm not sure why the Kurds didn't move-in with their militias, guess they are willing to cede the area. It seems that Mosul will be the main Sunni city in Iraq.

From what I've been reading the Kurds are still there and controlling certain parts of the city and the same goes for some Sunni insurgent groups...they control the streets..not National forces.

[Harlan Huckleby]

are you sure those Sunni groups controlling the street aren't working with the Americans? The bombings that occured recently were directed at Sunnis cooperating with Americans.

there's a river that runs through the center of Mosul, and I read that every Kurdish family on the wrong side was terrorized out of the city. The Kurdistan government paid to resettle all those people in the territory between Mosul & Kurdistan. Maybe Kurdistan is pleased to have settlers for this territory. Anyway, it turns out this is also around the area where the Christian population of Iraq has fled to form a little mini-homeland. The Kurds and Christians are now butting heads.

Iraq really is an unlovely place. I'm hopeful for the future, but if anything we've under-appreciated the degree of suffering and dislocation we've unleashed.

[mraynrand]

Iraq really is an unlovely place. I'm hopeful for the future, but if anything we've under-appreciated the degree of suffering and dislocation we've unleashed.

Yes, but some of that dislocation is actually a relocation of populations that were displaced under Saddam. Some Iraqis want to go back to where they were before Saddam tossed them aside. 'Payback's' a bitch, but it's probably a lot better with a stronger power overseeing it. Although we changed the Saddam status quo to begin with, without the U.S., I'm thinking things would look more like they did in Rwanda.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Yes, but some of that dislocation is actually a relocation of populations that were displaced under Saddam.

Ya, this is somewhat true. But not the general rule. Actually it is chaos and beyond understanding. Maybe something like this was inevitable? If we could roll the clock back 5 years and assemble 400K soldiers to police the country, we'd know.

[mraynrand]

Here we go again. It looks like the Iraqi Army can't even hold Mosul. We'll have to go pick up the pieces....again.

06/26/08 AP: US says top al-Qaida figure killed
Al-Qaida in Iraq's top leader in Mosul was killed during a raid this week in that northern city, the U.S. military said Thursday.

[Freak Out]

Here we go again. It looks like the Iraqi Army can't even hold Mosul. We'll have to go pick up the pieces....again.

06/26/08 AP: US says top al-Qaida figure killed
Al-Qaida in Iraq's top leader in Mosul was killed during a raid this week in that northern city, the U.S. military said Thursday.

...and the cavalry rolls in.

[Freak Out]

Interesting stuff. I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet......oops..I forget myself.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh/?yrail

[Harlan Huckleby]

Seymour Hirsch has been predicting an invasion of Iran for 4 years.

I'm made very nervous by Obama's statements on Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04policy.html

It sounds like he is going to precede with his troop withdrawal schedule regardless of conditions or implications.

I find this terribly stupid, lacking in wisdom or leadership. Maybe it's just campaign fodder.

It's possible that Iraq is capable of holding itself together if the U.S. withdraws on Obama's schedule. But it would be tragic if things reverse, in fact the damage to our interests will be greater than all the harm the invasion has already done!

WE need a clear, non-ideological approach to Iraq. There is so much positive that appears within reach. Maybe Obama is REALLY thinking pragmatically and can't say it. I'm concerned.

[texaspackerbacker]

There hasn't been much worth commenting on in here lately. Welcome back Politics/Issues of substance and significance.

It doesn't just sound like that, Harlan. It is Obama's oft-repeated firm position--firmly WRONGHEADED and ANTI-AMERICAN position.

The campaign is in kind of a lull right now. McCain is saying the right things on this and other issues, but predictably, the leftist mainstream media is giving him minimal coverage. That is problematic in the short term, but Obama can't run and hide from his extremist positions forever. As we get closer to the election, there will be ads and debates where Obama will be drawn out and forced to justify his horrendously anti-American attitude and views. When that happens, 2008 should procede just like 2000 and 2004 when similarly extreme leftists led in the polls about this time of the year, but were exposed for what they really were and went down to defeat.

For the sake of America's future, it has to happen again.

[mraynrand]

Obama can't run and hide from his extremist positions forever. As we get closer to the election, there will be ads and debates where Obama will be drawn out and forced to justify his horrendously anti-American attitude and views.

That's the key to his success. How long can he hide his extreme views? Will he actually get challenged and exposed on any of his absurd positions. That's the key. If the electorate knows he wants punitive capital gains taxes EVEN IF REVENUE GOES DOWN, he's in trouble. If he's asked the question "What if the Iraqi govt. ASKS US TO STAY IN IRAQ?" Then he's in trouble. Obama's ace in the hole is that he can appear to move to the center, because his base knows it's a smoke screen and will vote for him anyway. The hard lefties have herd mentality that way - they'll never move off their guy no matter what. The far right has some core principles that McCain doesn't care about, so they might let him twist in the wind. But don't underestimate Obama - he's extremely clever. His embracing of faith based initiatives was UberClintonian - chip away from the other guy by embracing one of his positions. Obama just freshened it up by masking the fact that he's all for faith based initiatives, so long as no faith is really involved. But that was hidden in his comments and didn't make the headlines. Meanwhile, Madame Defarge continues knitting....

[Freak Out]

Obama can't run and hide from his extremist positions forever. As we get closer to the election, there will be ads and debates where Obama will be drawn out and forced to justify his horrendously anti-American attitude and views.

That's the key to his success. How long can he hide his extreme views? Will he actually get challenged and exposed on any of his absurd positions. That's the key. If the electorate knows he wants punitive capital gains taxes EVEN IF REVENUE GOES DOWN, he's in trouble. If he's asked the question "What if the Iraqi govt. ASKS US TO STAY IN IRAQ?" Then he's in trouble. Obama's ace in the hole is that he can appear to move to the center, because his base knows it's a smoke screen and will vote for him anyway. The hard lefties have herd mentality that way - they'll never move off their guy no matter what. The far right has some core principles that McCain doesn't care about, so they might let him twist in the wind. But don't underestimate Obama - he's extremely clever. His embracing of faith based initiatives was UberClintonian - chip away from the other guy by embracing one of his positions. Obama just freshened it up by masking the fact that he's all for faith based initiatives, so long as no faith is really involved. But that was hidden in his comments and didn't make the headlines. Meanwhile, Madame Defarge continues knitting....

Hussein is moving to the center now at warp 8....damn the engines.

[Harlan Huckleby]

my main objection to Obama is I don't know who he is. I'm more bothered by his lack of track record than I am by his lack of experience.

[texaspackerbacker]

The guy is TRYING to sound centrist, and you just know the God damned left-saturated mainstream media will make every effort to allow him to carry out that deception.

On some levels, Obama is every bit as slick a politician as Bill Clinton. That is part of what makes him more dangerous than Algore and Kerry. The other thing that makes Obama even more dangerous is the fact that as extreme as the positions taken by Gore and Kerry were/are, Obama is infinitely MORE extreme. That last fact, however, I predict, will be his undoing. When it comes right down to the choice of his sick anti-American socialist ideology and being a Clinton-esque liar and distorter of his positions, I think Obama will have a hard time matching Clinton in disingenuousness.

The other key is the American people. They/we saw through the media blitz of support for Gore and Kerry and realized how extremely harmful to the country their policies would have been. Hopefully, as we get closer to the election and more and more of the unfiltered words of the candidates come through with ads, debates, etc., THE PEOPLE will come through again and save the country from the horrors and possibly destruction that an Obama Administration would bring.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harlan was ahead of the curve on this one. Like anything, we'll see. Time will bring clarity.


Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

BAGHDAD - The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.

"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.

"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."

It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.

Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

[texaspackerbacker]

The damn shame of it--actually an intentional situation on the part of the leftist mainstream media--is that the better things get, the less "newsworthy" it will be to those damn America-hating assholes.

Conversely, things take a mild turn for the worst as it seems in Afghanistan, and the same sick anti-American bastards--just like their God damned idol, Obama--then get all hopeful for a bad result, and start talking it up again.