President Bush, shoes, and his failed legacy

I know that everyone has seen this video, but I do have a few comments on it. First the story of President Bush, shoes, and his failed legacy that is the U.S. war in Iraq. From The New York Times:

BAGHDAD — President Bush made a valedictory visit on Sunday to Iraq, the country that will largely define his legacy, but the trip will more likely be remembered for the unscripted moment when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush’s head and denounced him on live television as a “dog” who had delivered death and sorrow here from nearly six years of war.

The drama unfolded shortly after Mr. Bush appeared at a news conference in Baghdad with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to highlight the newly adopted security agreement between the United States and Iraq. The agreement includes a commitment to withdraw all American forces by the end of 2011.

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him.

Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until “he was crying like a woman,” said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party, which is led by Mr. Maliki. Mr. Zaidi was then detained on unspecified charges.

Other Iraqi journalists in the front row apologized to Mr. Bush, who was uninjured and tried to brush off the incident by making a joke. “All I can report is it is a size 10,” he said, continuing to take questions and noting the apologies. He also called the incident a sign of democracy, saying, “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside.

[....]

Hitting someone with a shoe is considered the supreme insult in Iraq. It means that the target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty. Crowds hurled their shoes at the giant statue of Mr. Hussein that stood in Baghdad’s Firdos Square before helping American marines pull it down on April 9, 2003, the day the capital fell. More recently in the same square, a far bigger crowd composed of Iraqis who had opposed the security agreement flung their shoes at an effigy of Mr. Bush before burning it.

In one sense, I almost feel sorry for President Bush. Here is a man who doesn't fully understand the significance of the shoes being thrown at him, nor does he understand the enormous amount of death and destruction he has brought upon the Iraqi people. President Bush still believes he will be vindicated by history for his sending the U.S. into this war. And yet, this shoe-thrower, Muntader al-Zaidi, has become a hero in the Arab world for expressing the Iraqi peoples' anger against the U.S. occupation. The American people still oppose the U.S. war in Iraq by a clear majority of over 60 percent. President Bush's disapproval ratings are still hovering around 70 percent, while President-elect Barack Obama's approval ratings are hovering at around 68-to-75 percent. And let us not forget how the entire world celebrated Barack Obama's victory in the U.S. presidential race. President Bush disgraced himself when he gave the order to invade Iraq. He disgraced himself with the failed U.S. occupation of Iraq, the failed reconstruction of Iraq, and now this shoe-throwing incident which clearly shows how he cannot even travel anywhere in the world without being exposed to protestation and derision. I do not think he even understands the contempt that the world has for him, considering how he made such a terrible joke about the shoe size. In around 34 days, George W. Bush will leave the Oval Office, and Barack Obama will be sworn in to clean up the entire mess that Bush left us with his failed legacy. I almost feel sorry for President George W. Bush.

But then again, with the terrible crap that Bush has left this country in, I do not.

U.S. and Iraq close to a deal in pulling out U.S. troops by 2011

I will be honest, I never would have expected President Bush to make a withdrawal timetable deal for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. From MSNBC News:

BAGHDAD - Iraq and the U.S. pushed close to a deal Thursday setting a course for American combat troops to pull out of Iraqi cities by next June on the way to broader withdrawal from the long and costly war by 2011.

Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although the Americans insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.

President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003. But that has softened in recent weeks.

The timing has major political importance in both Iraq and the U.S.

The two contenders to replace Bush as U.S. commander in chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, spar almost daily over the future course of the war.

Obama wants all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed more urgently in Afghanistan. McCain says recent security improvements in Iraq show that decisions on the timing of further pullouts should be determined by circumstances on the ground rather than by prearranged timetables — a position the White House has vigorously held until recently.

The administration has inched toward the Iraqi view that setting at least a target date for withdrawal would make it politically palatable for Iraq's government to accept a substantial U.S. troop presence beyond this year.

This is just huge. This presidential campaign has really been defined by two major issues--the slowing U.S. economy, and the U.S. war in Iraq. Both Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain have staked opposing positions on the war. Obama wanted to remove U.S. combat forces within 16 months after he enters office--around the summer of 2010. McCain wanted to continue the war in Iraq until Iraqi forces could defeat al Qaeda terrorists. Congressional Republicans have been attacking Democratic withdrawal timetables for the past couple of years. President Bush threatened to veto Iraq war spending bills if they contained withdrawal timetables. Iraq was one of the big issues in defining the presidential election for this year. And now President Bush may have just thrown the Iraq chessboard in the air. Because President Bush has now accepted a Democratic withdrawal timetable, which has been agreed upon by the Maliki government, who also expressed the demand for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. I'm sure that the Obama campaign will welcome the Bush withdrawal timetable plan without any criticism. But how will the McCain campaign respond, even as McCain has claimed that a U.S. pullout of Iraq would result in genocide and a civil war? McCain has even insisted that he knows what the Iraqi people want, and that the Iraqi government cannot order the U.S. to withdrawal from Iraq. John McCain has taken a hard-lined approach of continuing the U.S. war in Iraq for the next hundred years. Will he support President Bush's troop withdrawal plan or reject it? Or will McCain enthusiastically support the withdrawal plan until he is elected into office, and then rip it to shreds in order to continue his war? I can't really say.

Kevin Drum has some interesting thoughts on this latest chessboard toss:

1. This is very good news for Democrats. It means that our eventual withdrawal from Iraq will not only be a bipartisan action, it will have been the creation of a Republican president. This is going to make it almost impossible for conservatives to ramp up any kind of serious stab-in-the-back narrative against anti-war liberals.

2. Basic Obama spin: "I'm glad to see that President Bush has finally come around to my view etc. etc." This ought to be a big win for him: he visits Iraq, meets with Nouri al-Maliki, gets Maliki's endorsement for a near-term troop withdrawal, and then gets to applaud as President Bush signs on.

3. Looking ahead, it's also a big win for Obama if he wins in November. Instead of a bruising congressional battle on withdrawal starting in January, he can just continue along the path Bush has set out. At most he'll tweak it a bit, which he can do on his own and without expending a lot of political capital.

4. This is also good news for Dems in conservative districts, since it eliminates a campaign issue that potentially hurts them.

5. Basic McCain spin: "It's good news that Iraq is now secure enough that we can envision bringing our troops home etc. etc." He'll also talk about how the surge deserves all the credit and he'll claim that 2011 is a totally different thing than Obama's plan to withdraw by 2010. This isn't great spin, but it's probably the best he's got.

6. Outside of spin alley, the news for McCain is mixed. The agreement takes Iraq largely off the table as a partisan campaign issue, which might be good (the public supports withdrawal, so it's been an Achilles heel for him) or might be bad (it takes the spotlight off foreign affairs, which he considers his strong suit). Overall, though, it's got to be a negative for a guy who just a few months ago was talking about staying in Iraq for a hundred years.

7. I wonder what McCain's initial reaction to this is going to be? When rumors of an agreement like this were being floated last month, he insisted that he had talked to Maliki personally and he knew that Maliki didn't really want a timetable for withdrawal. Looks like he was wrong about that. Is he going to stick to that line, or, like Jerry Brown after Prop 13 passed in 1978, is he suddenly going to become withdrawal's greatest advocate?

This is certainly going to be a huge game-changer for Obama, since now Obama can claim that Bush has come around to a withdrawal timetable that Obama has advocated, while McCain has been completely wrong about Iraq. Drum also makes another interesting point in that the Iraq agreement takes McCain's signature foreign policy issue off the election table, forcing the McCain campaign to rethink another signature campaign issue. Considering how McCain's economic or domestic policy issues are practically a disaster, that may also be a problem for the McCain campaign.

McCain surrogate: The truth of Iraq undermines the support of American troops

The McCain campaign is just going bonkers over all the flack on Republican presidential candidate John McCain's attempt to link the Anbar Awakening with the Bush troop surge. Here is McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer saying that Obama supporters' attempts to "litigate" the truth of Iraq are actually undermining the troops. From YouTube:



Here is the transcript:

"Barack Obama and his supporters can try to litigate what came first or what was crucial, but that's really an attempt to undermine the significance and the impact of the American troops and their sacrifice and their effort."

I really don't know what to say about this comment. Is the McCain campaign either that stupid, or may think that the American people are that stupid, in order to make this insidious comment that the facts of Iraq are undermining our troops? Perhaps I'm going stupid by just trying to understand this crap coming out of the McCain campaign--it is just that awful!

Stupid is as stupid does.

McCain's "secret surge"

This is from Countdown with Keith Olbermann:



Obsidian Wings has the translation of McCain's "cheesy" statement on the surge:

McCain: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy, and it's made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December of 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counterinsurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this counterinsurgency.

Prior to that, they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counterinsurgency -- surge -- entailed clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course later on there were additional troops, and General Petraeus has said that the surge would not have worked and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place successfully if they hadn't had an increase in the number of troops. So I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy, which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that counterinsurgency.

Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several months before that?

Yes, and again, because of my visits to Iraq, I was briefed by Colonel McFarland in December of 2006 where he outlined what was succeeding there in this counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge.

So if I understand this correctly, the "surge" does not mean the Bush troop surge, which was announced in January 2007, but rather a full counterinsurgency strategy that includes both the Bush troop surge of 2007, and Colonel McFarland's meetings with the sheiks in creating the alliance between the Sunnis and the U.S. military. In other words, McCain is himself defining the meaning of "the surge," and demanding that everyone else must agree to his definition.

The real problem here is this linking by McCain of the Bush troop surge, and the counterinsurgency strategy. There was a counterinsurgency strategy where McFarland created an alliance between the U.S. military and the Sunni sheiks in the Anbar province. And this strategy was successful. What McCain is trying to do is to take credit of McFarland's work for himself through linking the Anbar Awakening with the Bush troop surge, and then calling this all a "surge." So McCain's definition of "the surge" is not just the Bush troop surge, but also the Anbar Awakening, and anything else that the McCain campaign wants to include in their definition. This contradicts what everyone else considers as the definition of "the surge," which is basically the Bush troop surge of 2007.

John McCain is trying to rewrite history in a rather disgusting fashion.

McCain campaign defends the surge lie

This is from the Tribune's Washington Bureau, The Swamp:

Sen. John McCain, "staking his candidacy entirely on the surge in Iraq,'' has shown "that he does not understand one of the fundamental facts about the surge,'' MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was reporting of the Republican candidate for president last night - "getting the basic timeline and history of the surge entirely wrong.''

The McCain campaign objects to the characterization, and offers some background below on where the senator's critics are misguided.

The commentator's assertion stems from an interview that McCain conducted with CBS News, in which anchor Katie Couric pointed out that Sen. Barack Obama, who has just traveled through Iraq, has maintained that, while the increased deployment of troops there had contributed to security, a Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after the militia also contributed - and that security might have improved even without the surge.

McCain replied: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.'' He noted that a Col. McFarland had been contacted by one of the Sunni sheikhs, and because of that the surge forces were able to go protect that sheikh and others. "And it began the Anbar awakening,'' McCain said. "That's just a matter of history.''

[....]

The Swamp reached out for McCain's reaction. Read on:

"Senator McCain is correct,'' McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said today. "As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda.

"The surge strategy that was supported by John McCain and opposed by Barack Obama was responsible for the reduction in violence we have seen over the last year and a half. Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge, or whether the Shiite militias would have unilaterally disarmed without US troops and our Iraqi allies disarming them by force, but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.


"If Barack Obama had had his way,'' Bounds said, "the Awakening would have been crushed at the hands of al Qaeda, and US forces would have already left Iraq in defeat."

Did you notice the shift? McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds first claimed that the Bush troop surge was the reason for the success in the Anbar Awakening, but then goes on to attack Obama saying that if the Democrats had withdrawn U.S. forces, the Anbar Awakening would have been crushed by al Qaeda. Even more, Bounds then makes the outrageous claim that the "Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge...." This debate isn't about whether the Awakening could have survived with, or without, the surge. This debate isn't even about whether the surge was the reason for the success of the Anbar Awakening. What this debate is about is Senator John McCain's insistence that the surge took place before the Anbar Awakening. John McCain lied about the timeline between when the Anbar Awakening took place in September 2006, and when President Bush announced his troop surge in January, 2007. And the McCain campaign continues to present this lie.

And as for General Petraeus' remarks on the surge and the Anbar Awakening, the Swamp includes this comment:

And here are some earlier comments to consider from Petraeus and Fred Kagan, architect of the surge:

General Petraeus: The Awakening "Was Very Much Enabled By The Surge Because That Enabled Us To Clear Areas Over Time." GEN. PETRAEUS: "Well, sir, the Sons of Iraq are individuals that -- it really dates all the way back to Anbar province and the first awakening, which, to be fair, took place -- it started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge because that enabled us to clear areas over time. But it started with a sheikh in Anbar province coming to a brigade commander in Ramadi and saying back in October, 2006, would you support us if we turned our weapons on al Qaeda instead of on you? And the brigade commander got that test question right. He pledged support. It took some time to build those forces, to get them going, to get it established. By mid-March, they were ready to clear Baqubah or, I'm sorry, Ramadi." (Gen. Petraeus, U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 4/9/08)

Surge Strategy Architect Fred Kagan: "When Colonel John Charlton's Brigade Relieved MacFarland's In Ramadi And Was Joined By Two Additional Marine Battalions (Part Of The Surge) Elsewhere In Anbar, The 'Awakening' Began To Accelerate Very Rapidly." "The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar's capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton's brigade relieved MacFarland's in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the 'awakening' began to accelerate very rapidly." (Frederick W. Kagan, "The Gettysburg Of This War," National Review Online, 9/3/07)

Again, the argument is not whether the surge provided some success in the Anbar Awakening. The argument is about the timeline of the surge taking place before the Anbar Awakening, with the surge being the catalyst for creating the Anbar Awakening.

And John McCain continues to lie about the timeline.

Update: It turns out that the McCain campaign has canceled a press conference for today in the aftermath of McCain's "Anbar Awakening" lie. From Salon.com:

In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, John McCain made a major mistake in recounting the history of the surge in Iraq. McCain credited it with the development of the "Anbar awakening," the movement of Sunnis in that province away from al-Qaida and toward working with the U.S. The problem? The awakening began before the surge was even announced.

The McCain campaign has -- deservedly -- been getting hammered on this, and it has struck back, somewhat angrily. "Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy," spokesman Tucker Bounds said. (Of course, that's not what's being debated -- McCain said the surge "began" the awakening.)

Now, all of a sudden, the McCain campaign has canceled a press availability that was scheduled for Wednesday. Both the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith rightly wonder about the McCain camp's reasons for doing so.

"My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania ... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage," Ambinder, who is traveling with McCain, wrote.

"McCain's avail today was the one with more promise to make news," Smith wrote, then cited a list of potentially uncomfortable things -- with the awakening first among them -- that McCain could expect to be asked about before noting, "And now he's canceled the avail."

I would say that McCain's handlers have decided not to bring McCain out to the national reporters, who would certainly start to question McCain on the timeline. Instead, we get the McCain campaign PR-spin of McCain traveling to Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district, where the campaign is hoping to spoon-feed local reporters news coverage that will benefit McCain. The McCain campaign is hoping this latest John McCain gaffe will go away over the next couple of days.

Iraqi government wants U.S. troops out by 2010

The events in Iraq are proceeding at such a furious pace, that even I can't keep up with them. First, Prime Minister Maliki threw his support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months. Then the Bush administration strong-armed the Iraqi government, into saying that Maliki statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated." Now the Iraqi government has reversed itself, saying they want U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010. From YouTube:



Talk about another monkey wrench being thrown into this mess. It seems like that the American people, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi prime minister, and the Democratic presidential candidate all want U.S. forces out of Iraq. The Pentagon has stated that U.S. troops will need to be removed from Iraq or the U.S. military will be broken. Only President George W. Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are the only ones that want to continue this disastrous war, regardless of what anyone says.

GOP strategist responding to Maliki endorsement of Obama withdrawal timetable: We're Fucked!

There is just no other way to say it. From the Atlantic.com:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

So how will the McCain campaign respond?

(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here's what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: "Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’'ve had."

Will Maliki retract his words?

I'd say that the GOP strategist is understating is understating his comment regarding the McCain campaigns' response--McCain is royally fucked here. There is just no response that McCain can give that will not contradict his previous 2004 statement of withdrawing U.S. troops if the Iraqi government requests such a withdrawal. Even the July 8, 2008 McCain statement on McCain sidestepping Maliki's general withdrawal timetable doesn't even take into context the political fallout of Maliki's endorsement of Obama's timetable. There is just no way McCain can respond to this story without causing even further damage to his already disastrous campaign.

John McCain is royally and completely fucked here.

(My apologies for the coarse language)

Iraq government claims Maliki's support for Obama timetable “misunderstood and mistranslated”

Well, the story of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's backing of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's troop withdrawal timetable has now entered into the Twilight Zone. According to The New York Times Caucus blog:

Update: A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister has issued a statement saying his remarks were “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but did not address a specific error. Full statement below.

The policies and whims of American leaders have played a major role in politics in Iraq and elsewhere. And now, Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, dipped his toes in the United States’ race for the White House.

Mr. Maliki essentially endorsed Senator Barack Obama’s plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel.

[....]

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops. More of the statement, which came from the U.S. military’s Central Command press office:

Al-Dabbagh explained that Mr. al-Maliki confirmed the existence of an Iraqi vision stems from the reality with regard to Iraq security needs, as the positive developments of the security situation and the improvement witnessed in Iraqi cities makes the subject of U.S. forces’ withdrawal within prospects, horizons and timetables agreed upon and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground, and security that came within the Strategic Plan for Cooperation which was laid and developed by Mr. Maliki and President George Bush. The Iraqi government appreciates and values the efforts of all the friends who continue to support and supporting Iraqi security forces.

Al-Dabbagh underscored that the statements made by the head of the ministerial council (Prime Minister al-Maliki) or any of the members of the Iraqi government should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.

So now even though Maliki first claimed that he supports Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable, the official Iraqi government's position is that Maliki statement was "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision" of Obama's vision, or a possible withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops in Iraq. Such a possible timetable would be set according to security conditions in Iraq and the Strategic Plan for Cooperation that was developed between Maliki and the Bush administration. Now Maliki no longer supports any U.S. presidential candidate.

And even Maliki has suddenly reversed himself in claiming he does not support any U.S. presidential candidate. According to the Caucus:

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki said, according to the magazine’s online English edition. “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Naturally, Mr. Maliki did not want to imply he was backing one candidate over another in a foreign election:

“Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business,” he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain’s more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems.”

So Maliki first claims that he supports Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal timeline, but then rejects that he is endorsing one candidate over the other. The simple fact here is that Maliki is endorsing Obama's candidacy because Obama will withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq. It is a "realistic" premise that Maliki supports. Maliki has also rejected Republican presidential candidate John McCain's 100-year-war-in-Iraq policy by saying that "Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems. Maliki has inserted himself into the presidential election, irregardless of whatever the official Iraqi government statement is. Is this going to influence the result of the U.S. presidential elections? I don't think so. Of course American voters may consider Maliki's support for Obama's troop withdrawal plan as another political point of contention between the two political parties on the issue of Iraq, but that will be as far as it will go. I could care less about what any government in the world would say in choosing between the two candidates--this just becomes another public opinion poll between the candidates. I would be more concerned about foreign governments contributing money to either presidential campaigns as a means of influencing elections--that I will not support for either Obama or McCain's campaign. While Obama has banned lobbyists from raising money for his campaign, McCain has allowed lobbyists working for foreign governments to both contribute money to his campaign and have those lobbyists work for his campaign. According to this February 1, 2008 ABC News story:

On his quest for the White House, McCain has five fundraisers who lobby for foreign interests. His campaign co-chair and chief moneyman, Thomas Loeffler, has lobbied for Saudi Arabia for five years. Loeffler personally arranged a meeting between Sen. McCain and Prince Turki al-Faisal, then-Saudi ambassador to the United States, in May of 2006. Loeffler, a former congressman and longtime Republican fundraiser, chairs the firm that helped the Saudi kingdom join the World Trade Organization, fight anti-Saudi legislation and improve its image in the war on terrorism. The Saudi royals paid Loeffler's firm more than $11 million in two years for its efforts on their behalf.

Loeffler did not respond to repeated calls requesting comment, but when asked about his work for Saudi Arabia last April, Loeffler told the National Journal that he would handle "all of the work" of his firm while working on the McCain campaign. He also said, "I do not find a conflict of interest at this time," according to the magazine.

McCain's fundraisers also include lobbyists for Peru, the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and Dubai.

One of them, Peter Madigan, works for the government of Colombia to promote a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement. His firm is also paid to "seek appropriations for the Government of Colombia," according to filings. The firm's lobbyists have distributed papers defending Colombian President Alvaro Uribe against allegations of ties to paramilitary groups, and promoting the controversial anti-drug program "Plan Colombia" as achieving "strengthening of human rights."

Madigan, who also lobbies on behalf of Dubai, serves with Sen. McCain on the board of the International Republican Institute, which seeks to advance freedom worldwide.

So not only is McCain in bed with the lobbyists, but he is also in bed with lobbyists working for foreign governments. Do you really want McCain in the White House?

Going back to the Maliki story, Der Speigel is still sticking to its story:

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement "did not address a specific error." CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, "how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by "how little effort was made" to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation.

Here is Spiegel's interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd: GOP panicked over Maliki's timetable

Here is MSNBC's political analyst Chuck Todd reporting that the Republican Party is panicked over Maliki's endorsement of Obama's timetable. Todd also states that, while Obama's Iraq trip has been a huge boom for the Obama campaign this weekend, the presidential race will still shift back towards the economy. From YouTube:



Todd is right--there is a serious panic taking place within the GOP. Not only has Maliki pulled the rug out of the GOP's argument for continuing the Iraq war, but the deteriorating economy under George W. Bush's administration certainly doesn't help John McCain's campaign to continue with a third Bush term, especially since McCain's economic policy is a continuation of Bush's economic policy. Right now, the McCain campaign and the Bush administration are pushing this spin that the coming U.S. recession is "psychological," even as Americans are being hurt by job losses, high energy and food prices, and falling home values due to the mortgage mess. It is the perfect storm of disaster after disaster falling on to the GOP, disasters created by their own outright greed and incompetence.

Is it no wonder that they are in a panic?

White House accidentally emails story to reporters on Maliki supports Obama's troop withdrawal timetable

This is from ABC News:

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months … ‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'" the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama's campaign alleges the president is moving closer toward Obama's recommendations about international relations -- sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a "general time horizon" for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran.

Something tells me that the Bush administration just crapped a huge brick in its pants when they sent this email out. First this was a huge goof on part of the Bush White House, in that they wanted to send this story to their partisan pundits and bloggers so that they would use the story to attack the Obama campaign on the policy of a U.S. troop withdrawal time line. But more importantly, this story reveals something else about the Bush administration's pro-war policy in Iraq. It shows fear within the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Iraqi Prime Minister Malikis' support of Democratic candidate Barack Obama's troop withdrawal timetable provides a powerful opening to the American people on how to exit a war that almost two-thirds of the American people oppose. They may not have previously supported Obama's timetable, but with the Iraqi prime minister endorsing Obama's plan, then this is a powerful incentive for ending this failed Bush war that the American people are opposed to. It completely undercuts the entire pro-war positions of both the Bush administration and GOP presidential candidate John McCain. The Bush administration's plan was to send this story out to their partisan hacks and bloggers in order to both attack Obama and discredit Maliki in supporting a strategy that would cause both the U.S. and Iraq to surrender to the al Qaeda terrorists. Instead, the email was sent to reporters, magnifying this latest screw-up by the Bush White House.

Maliki backs Obama's troop withdrawal plan from Iraq

This is huge. From Reuters.com:

BERLIN, July 19 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.

This is just huge. First, Maliki wants U.S. occupation troops out of Iraq. All the PR-spin that we've been hearing from the Bush administration and the GOP about how Iraq would descend into anarchy and ethnic civil war if the U.S. pulled out, all the talk of how the Bush administration are holding the strings of a puppet government in Iraq, and here is the U.S. handpicked puppet leader of Iraq saying he supports Democrat Barack Obama's approach for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months. This is just incredible.

What is Republican Senator John McCain's response to Maliki? According to The Economist.com:

In 2004 Mr McCain told the Council on Foreign Relations that if asked to leave, America would have to withdraw.

[I]f that scenario evolves then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

But the McCain campaign's most recent statement was more non-committal. "Senator McCain has always said that conditions on the ground—including the security threats posed by extremists and terrorists, and the ability of Iraqi forces to meet those threats—would be key determinants in US force levels," said Randy Scheunemann, Mr McCain's foreign-policy adviser, avoiding the question.

Mr Maliki has sure put Mr McCain in a box. The candidate has prided himself on standing firm on Iraq—he has maintained his hawkish stance and criticised those who even utter the word "timetable". Moreover, his campaign has attacked Mr Obama's "constantly shifting positions" on Iraq. So it would be a difficult political manoeuvre for Mr McCain to respond at all positively to Mr Maliki's idea. Meanwhile, Mr Obama might begin to ask a receptive American electorate, "Who is it that wants America to stay in Iraq?"

In 2004, Senator McCain stated that if a legitimately elected Iraqi government asked for the U.S. to leave Iraq, then the U.S. should honor the Iraqi government's request. Now presidential candidate McCain has reversed himself, saying that the U.S. would withdrawal from Iraq only when the Iraqi forces are able to respond to terrorist threats to U.S. satisfaction, irregardless of the Iraqi government's position. This places John McCain in a very bad position, since McCain has staked a 100-year U.S. war in Iraq. And Maliki wants the U.S. out of Iraq in 16 months. What is worst, is that John McCain has focused his campaign on the Iraq war, saying that McCain himself has the greater foreign policy experience to confront the problems with Iraq, and that Barack Obama will surrender Iraq to the terrorists. McCain has said that the U.S. surge in Iraq has been a success, and that we should not leave Iraq before victory, or whatever "victory" is according to McCain. If the U.S. surge is a success, then it is time for the U.S. to leave Iraq. The McCain campaign has made the U.S. war in Iraq a single-focus issue to run on--every other issue has been a disaster for the McCain campaign. Now Maliki has pulled the Iraq rug out from under John McCain, sending McCain's pro-100-year-war Iraq policy into a shambles.

Update: I should point out that the McCain campaign has so far avoided directly responding to Maliki's endorsement of Obama's troop withdrawal timetable. Instead, McCain has been generally avoiding the question of Maliki's demands for a general timetable, saying that U.S. troops will leave Iraq only after they achieve "victory." So the McCain campaign has found themselves in a very bad situation, where McCain is, again, contradicting himself on Iraq.

Update 2: The McCain campaign has responded to Maliki's comment on supporting Barack Obama's troomp withdrawal. According to The Los Angeles Times:

John McCain's Republican presidential campaign was forced to respond this afternoon to initial press reports that in an interview with a German magazine Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had essentially endorsed theRepublican presidential nominee to be Senator John McCain on one of his numerous visits to Iraq 16-month Iraq pullout timetable of Democrat Barack Obama.

[....]

The political fear for the McCain camp is that in its energetic focus on the Obama political field trip and the 16-month timetable, the media and voters will miss another similarity, Maliki's reference to taking into account actual military conditions on the ground.

That's a crucial difference between Obama, who emphasized the immediate withdrawal part to his party's left during the primary process, and McCain, who's stressed pulling out based on the military situation and commander's counsel.

So this afternoon the McCain campaign called attention to a new video documenting the shifts in Obama's Iraq withdrawal position and issued a statement by foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann that said in full:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

"Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama.

"The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Sen. Obama's (anti-surge) views had prevailed."

Again, McCain sidesteps the issue, saying that Obama's troop withdrawal plan is wrong, and McCain is right about the U.S. troop surge success, while completely avoiding Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan. It is the same old crap, different day response to a failed McCain campaign policy of continuing the 100-year war.

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion

The only comment I have to say is that we need to get out of Iraq. From CNN.Com:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told members of Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day, and called out the Bush Administration.

This was a war of U.S. imperialism, the control of Iraq's oil resources, and the neo-con desire to project American military power throughout the Middle East. And now this disaster is going to cost us over $2.7 trillion dollars--money that we do not have.

President Bush has bankrupted this country.

McCain must explain U.S. 100-year vigil in Iraq

This is an excellent political commentary from The National Journal's Ronald Brownstein. In the big fight over the Republican complaint that the Democrats new television add had distorted GOP presidential candidate, Senator John McCain's statement of a possible 100-year U.S. presence in Iraq. McCain continues to insist that the statement did not mean that U.S. troops would be in combat for 100 years, but rather as a long-term military presence similar to U.S. military presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany. Brownstein argues that the problem for McCain and the Republicans is in their inability to explain how the current U.S. war in Iraq can be transformed into a U.S. military presence found in these three democratic nations. According to Brownstein:

First, if McCain doesn't envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in that role? So far, all he has said is that the United States should withdraw only if it concludes that the Iraq mission is unachievable or when it has achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of "a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state."

McCain hasn't said how long he would keep fighting to reach that demanding goal. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of McCain's closest Senate allies, recently said he thinks that McCain would maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq through his entire four-year presidential term if military commanders recommended that course to maintain stability there.

McCain has not said when, but he has pledged that Iraqi units will eventually assume the major combat responsibility. That prompts the next question McCain should address: What would then become the mission for the U.S. forces he wants to maintain in Iraq? McCain hasn't specified. But he has suggested that their job would be to deter external aggression, much as in South Korea where our troops "served as a buffer against invasion from North Korea."

In that example, however, the U.S. and South Korea agreed that North Korea posed a threat. The American troop presence in Germany and Japan long rested on a similar agreement about the potential danger from the Soviet Union, notes Ivo Daalder, a Brookings Institution senior fellow in foreign policy.

[....]

Indeed, skeptics raise another question that fundamentally challenges McCain's analogy to Germany, Japan, and South Korea: Could U.S. troops ever be accepted in Iraq as completely as they have been in those societies? Or would our forces always be a target in Iraq, not only for Al Qaeda but also for the contending domestic factions? As Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean asked this week, "Does anyone think ... if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be ... setting off suicide bombs?"

[....]

Five years ago this week, President Bush exulted beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. McCain, under any interpretation of his words, is proposing another mission in Iraq--a long vigil--that would extend for decades. With the stakes so high, it's not enough for him to accuse critics of twisting his meaning: He needs to more clearly explain it himself.

You can bet that John McCain will never attempt to clearly explain his own policy of continuing the U.S. war in Iraq.

New Democratic Party ad attacking McCain's 100 year war in Iraq

This is devastating. The Democratic National Committee has launched a new political campaign commercial attacking GOP presidential candidate John McCain's comment on how the U.S. should continue the war in Iraq for 100 years. From YouTube:



This is exactly how you attack John McCain. You hit McCain hard with his own words. The problem with the McCain campaign is that they do not have a coherent policy for the U.S. war in Iraq--except for continuing the Bush administration's disastrous policy of maintaining the current U.S. occupation of Iraq. McCain does claim that he envisions U.S. troops to be stationed in Iraq similar to the role of U.S. military presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany. But the problem with that strategy is that the U.S. presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany is maintained to deter a potential outside aggression from another country--specifically a potential North Korean invasion of South Korea, and the Soviet Union's potential invasion of Japan and Germany. There really is no outside aggressive threat against Iraq at this time. I do not think that Iran is considered much of an aggressive threat against Iraq, considering that Iraqi Shiites would probably welcome closer diplomatic and economic ties with Iran. And as for al Qaeda in Iraq, estimates of the number of al Qaeda fighters vary from 1,000 to 30,000 fighters. I don't think anyone really knows how many al Qaeda fighters are in Iraq, although I'm sure the McCain campaign would use the 30,000 figure to bolster their support for continuing the U.S. war in Iraq.

The bottom line here is that John McCain has every intention of continuing with this disastrous war into his presidency. And McCain will use any excuse, lie, or even political spin to continue a war that a majority of the American people oppose. How do you stop the McCain campaign from continuing this disastrous war?

By attacking John McCain with political ads like these.

Consumer prices continue to rise

This is not surprising. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Consumer prices pushed higher last month as increases in energy, food and airline tickets overwhelmed the biggest drop in clothing prices in nearly a decade.

The Labor Department reported Wednesday that consumer prices rose 0.3 percent in March after being unchanged in February.

Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, posted a 0.2 percent rise last month. Both the overall increase and the rise in core prices were in line with analysts’ expectations.

Over the past 12 months, inflation is up by 4 percent, reflecting relentless gains in energy costs, which are up 17 percent over that period, and food prices, which are up 4.4 percent.

For individual food items, the gains are even more stark, with the price of bread up 14.7 percent over the past year and milk prices up 13.3 percent over the same period.

We are now seeing the effects of increased energy costs now being reflected with the higher prices of food. Food needs to be transported from the farms, to the manufacturing facilities for processing, and finally to the grocery stores for consumers to purchase. There are transportation costs--through both railroads and trucks--that need to be added into the price of food items. And those transportation costs include the use of diesel fuel and gasoline needed by train engines and trucks to haul those very same food items from the farms and factories, to the stores. And since energy costs have been rising, this increase in energy costs are cutting into the profits of farms, factories and retail outlets that produce and sell food. That is why both food prices are rising, and why we are seeing this 4 percent jump in inflation.

Now I also saw this interesting MSNBC article on oil prices topping a $115 a barrel:

NEW YORK - Crude futures rose past $115 Wednesday for the first time, propelled by concerns about how much gas will be available during the peak summer months.

In its weekly inventory report, the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said inventories of gas fell by 5.5 million barrels, much more than analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected. Light, sweet crude for May delivery responded by rising as high as $115.07 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and later was up $1.15 at $114.94 a barrel.

The report said crude inventories fell by 2.3 million barrels last week, compared to the gain analysts expected.

But the market was torn and traded sharply lower at times by data deeper in the report showing that the country’s appetite for increasingly expensive gas is declining.

“Demand for gasoline is terrible,” said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. Gas demand has fallen an average of 1 percent each of the last four weeks compared to the same period last year. “Demand should be rising this time of year.”

Still, May gasoline futures rose 5.39 cents to $2.9349 a gallon on the Nymex after earlier rising to a trading record of $2.9427.

The EIA report also said inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel, unexpectedly rose last week by about 100,000 barrels. Analysts had expected a sharp decline. May heating oil futures rose 0.73 cents to $3.2812 a gallon.

Demand for gasoline has been falling for months as consumers reacted to a series of price records by driving less. The national average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gas rose 1.3 cents Wednesday to a record $3.399 a gallon, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. That’s 53 cents higher than a year ago, and is expected to keep climbing along with futures prices and as the summer driving season draws near.

A couple of interesting points here to note. First, the demand for gas is declining. As gas prices approach $4.00 a gallon, consumers are reacting to the price increase by driving less and consuming less gas. Energy analysts have been expecting demand for gas to increase as the summer driving season approaches. What will happen is that oil companies and refiners will cut back on production of fuel, both to reduce the unexpected increase in the supply of heating oil and diesel fuel, and to keep the fuel prices at their current levels. If consumer demand for gas increases during the summer driving season, you can bet that gas prices will shoot up due to both the potential increasing demand, and the reduction of the supply by the energy producers. At this point, I can say that here in the San Jose Bay Area, gas prices are now at around $3.80--$3.90 a gallon for the regular gas, and around $4.00--$4.15 a gallon for the premium stuff. If energy prices continue to increase at the beginning of summer, I think we're going to see gas prices shoot up to over $4.00 a gallon for the regular stuff here as the Memorial Day weekend begins.

The second point here is that energy costs are still rising. Oil prices topped $115 a barrel, breaking even more price records. Granted, the price dropped back down to only $114.94 a barrel, but you can look at this chart on how the price of light, sweet, crude oil has shot up since February of this year:

Futures price of light, sweet, crude oil over the past two years. From StockCharts.com

Why have energy prices shot up since last February? I found this interesting Raw Story article that may provide a partial answer to the increase in oil prices:

The number of Iraqis killed in February rose by 33 percent over January, reversing a six-month trend of reduced violence, in a setback to the US military plan to curb the bloodshed ravaging the country.

The combined figures obtained by AFP from the interior, defence and health ministries showed that the total number of Iraqis killed in February was 721, including 636 civilians, compared with 541 dead in January.

It reverses the six-month trend of a steady fall in casualties across the country on the back of a massive US and Iraqi military assault, mainly targeting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The February death toll is up after a steady fall in the preceding six months. The monthly tolls were 541 in January, 568 in December, 606 in November, 887 in October, 917 in September and 1,856 in August.

The number of people wounded in February was 847.

The jump in February's toll seems to have been caused by two major attacks during the month.

On February 1, at least 98 people were slaughtered when a female suicide bomber blew herself up amid a crowd of pet lovers in Baghdad's popular al-Ghazl animal market.

And in another brazen attack last Sunday, at least 48 people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of pilgrims at a rest stop in the town of Iskandiriyah, south of Baghdad.

Violence in Iraq had increased during February, 2008. Toss in the Maliki government's failed crackdown against the Mahdi Army in Basra near the end of March, I'd say that the Iraq war premium on oil futures had dramatically increased over the past couple of months. And if the violence in Iraq continues to increase over the course of this year, then oil prices, gas prices, and consumer prices will all continue to increase.

Expect more inflation.

Iraq: Six months at a time

This latest MoveOn.org ad is just brilliant. Even I have forgotten just how many times King George The Deciderer has told me that success in Iraq is just around the corner--in about six months. From YouTube:



Come to think of it--King George is actually right this time. Success in Iraq will come to us at around six months from now. Because that is when the presidential elections will take place, and hopefully we'll be able to kick the GOP out of both the White House and Congress so we can finally end this bloody war.

Petraeus: Iraq security 'Fragile and Reversible'

Let's head over to Capitol Hill, where the top military commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, has been testifying before Congress on--again--why we should continue to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. From The Washington Post:

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq told a Senate committee today that improved security in Iraq is "fragile and reversible" and recommended a pause in the withdrawal of U.S. forces after mid-July.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended to his superiors that the military continue rolling back a "surge" of U.S. forces that President Bush ordered last year in response to deteriorating security in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. But after U.S. forces are reduced to their pre-buildup level by mid-July, Petraeus said, the military should suspend the withdrawals and begin a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation."

At the end of that period, he said, he has recommended starting "a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions." He strongly counseled against setting any deadlines for withdrawal.

"This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," he said in his prepared statement. Instead, he said, it provides "the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve."

Do you know what I think? I think it is time to take a ride on the Iraq Sit-n-Spin--courtesy of the Republican Party:

Look how fast we can spin this war around!

The simple fact is that this is another attempt by the Bush administration to continue this disastrous war until after President Bush leaves office and dumps this entire mess on his successor. They know that the Maliki government has failed in its offensive against the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and that the violence in Iraq is escalating. The key point here is how do you maintain Congress' castrated stance in continuing to follow the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq? You continue to shove more spin down Congress, and the American peoples' throats. Only this time, you change the spin a little. Now the U.S. military will provide Congress with 45-day assessments regarding the ongoing situation in Iraq. What do you think Petraeus is going to say to Congress after each 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation?" He is going to say the same thing he said today about Iraq--we're still making progress in Iraq, but the situation is still fragile, and we can't withdrawal U.S. forces yet. On and on this spin will go, until President Bush will leave office, dump this entire failed crap on his [Democratic] successor, and then blame the Democrats for losing the war in Iraq.

Here is the mother-of-all Petraeus quotes:

In his opening statement, Petraeus cited "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq," saying that levels of violence and civilian deaths have declined substantially and that the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist organizations "have been dealt serious blows." In addition, he said, "the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security."

However, "the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable challenges remain," Petraeus said. "Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible."

Again, we're hearing the Bush administration's doom-and-gloom spin--progress has been made in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt serious blows, Iraqi forces have been getting better. But if we leave now, everything will go to hell in a hand basket--the progress is still "fragile and reversible." Stay the course! We've been hearing this spin for almost five years now. The situation in Iraq has not changed over the past five years, nor will it ever change as long as U.S. troops continue to occupy the country. Again, the Bush administration's game plan has been to run out the clock on this war, and dump it on the next president. And Petraeus has been a good little Bush parrot--repeating the same crap over and over again. Incredible.

While we're on Iraq, we certainly have to look at what Senator John McCain said in his opening statement to the Petraeus hearings:

As the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain spoke before Petraeus and Crocker testified, repeating his warnings that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq too soon would bring chaos to the country and possibly trigger genocidal sectarian warfare.

"We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," he said.

[....]

McCain also called on Iraq to use its own money to pay for more projects and programs and to "take on more of the financial burdens borne by American taxpayers."

But he strongly denounced calls by Democrats for what he termed "a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal" from Iraq at a time when the U.S. strategy is succeeding.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he did not want to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "a minute longer than necessary." But he warned that promising to withdraw forces "regardless of consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

What can I say--McCain wants his 100-year war in Iraq! It is a delusional thinking on McCain's part to continue on with this disastrous war for no reason other than it "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership." The failure of political and moral leadership is currently residing in the Oval Office under the name of George W. Bush. Bush got us into this disastrous war. Now he can't find a way out, so he'll dump it on the next president. Why McCain wants to become president and inherit this disastrous war is beyond my comprehension. Maybe he wants to continue the violence in Iraq because he is a bitter man with a bad temper, who believes that he should have been president in 2000, rather than George W. Bush. Whatever the reasons, McCain is trying to project the Bush administration's failures in Iraq, and the Republican Party's lack of political leadership in resolving this war on the Democrats. In other words, he is trying to blame the Democrats for both the Bush administration, and the Republican Party's failures on Iraq. It is a rather strange political campaign strategy, considering that McCain is also advocating the same Bush administration's failed policy of continuing this Iraq war.

It is complete madness.

Friday Fun Stuff--GOP congressman McHenry calls U.S. soldier in Iraq a "two-bit security guard"

This is just incredible. I'm not sure if the Republican politicians are that stupid, or full of disdain for American soldiers in Iraq. During a public appearance last Saturday, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) belittled a U.S. soldier in Iraq, calling him a "two-bit security guard" after the soldier would not allow McHenry to go to a gym without the proper credentials. The soldier was apparently following orders while guarding the gym. And that wasn't good enough for our arrogant Republican congressman. Here is McHenry's quote from Think Progress:

We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway.

You can view the video here through YouTube:



What can I say, but this guy is a frickin' idiot. You are in a war zone. And U.S. soldiers performing guard duty, in Iraq, will follow their orders specifically as to whether to allow someone to enter a place with the proper credentials. If you don't have the proper identification, you are not getting in. And no amount of screaming at the soldier, or demanding to see his commanding officer, is going to help you. And congressman McHenry, you think you had it bad on your little fact-finding trip to Iraq--how many tours has that "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier have had to endure in Iraq, serving his country so that you, the Republican Party, and the war-mongering Bush administration can continue this destructive war in Iraq? And I would suppose that you are a Republican, you will also continue to support this destructive war in Iraq, which is destroying our U.S. military, and forcing this "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier to endure even more endless tours in this lost war, keeping him away from his family.

I sincerely hope that the voters in North Carolina will kick your ass out of Congress this November.

Today’s Army is out of balance

I found this VetVoice story through Crooks and Liars, and it is just incredible. From VetVoice:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody sternly rebuked all those who've been blowing sunshine and spreading baseless happy talk for five years with regard to the war in Iraq. And he was blunt--blunter than I've ever heard him before--about the crisis facing the Army. He even went so far as to hint at the "D-word" in his prepared remarks:

Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies . . . Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.

Given the current theater demand for Army forces, we are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our Soldiers and Families. Soldiers, Families, support systems, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time. Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed. Army support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.


And then he added the kicker:

If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.

When Cody says "this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force," he's really saying we have three options:

1. We can change course now and save everyone a lot of trouble.

2. We can maintain our current course in Iraq and watch the Army disintegrate as it did during and after Vietnam.

3. We can institute the Draft.

There is not much else to say here--the Army is broken. We are faced with the three options of either pulling out of Iraq, watching the Army disintegrate, or institute the draft. At this point, President Bush is more than happy to allow the Army to disintegrate if it would allow Bush to salvage his "legacy" and blame the Army's disintegration on his successor (who may end up being a Democrat). As for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, how much do you want to bet that he will continue the Iraq war with some form of draft? The longer this war continues on, the worst it will get for our military. And the harder the choice will be between these three no-win options.

U.S. military getting gouged at the gas pump

I shouldn't be surprised at this story. From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.

Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.

Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.

The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.

Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.

Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.

Think about it for a moment. The U.S. military is stuck in an endless war in Iraq. The Middle East private and government-owned oil companies are more than happy to charge the Pentagon whatever they feel is the market price for gas that day--remember, the Pentagon is buying 50 million gallons of fuel a month on the open market. And while some suppliers are charging a low price of around $1.99 a gallon, and others are charging over $5.00 a gallon, the prices average out to around $3.23 a gallon for gas. If the U.S. military doesn't purchase their gas from these Middle Eastern energy suppliers, you can bet that there will be a lot of U.S. military trucks, tanks, helicopters, and airplanes sitting with empty gas tanks. You can also bet that the Bush administration will not do a damn thing about this issue of high gas prices for the Pentagon--private suppliers gathering around the American taxpayer trough to pig out on their fill!

We need to get out of Iraq.