Log In | Register
23 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 35 photos)
(showing 1 of 35 photos)advertisement
WASHINGTON — With al-Qaida's influence diminishing in Iraq, U.S. troops have much work to do in stemming Iranian support for militias, President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday.
"Iran is very active in the southern part of Iraq. They are training Iraqis in Iran who come into Iraq and attack our forces, Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians. There are movements of equipment. There's movements of funds," Stephen Hadley said. "So we have illegal militia in the southern part of the country that really are acting as criminal elements that are pressing the people down there."
"Al-Qaida, they're on the defensive," he added, citing the illegal militias as an emerging threat. The prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, "decided it was time to take control of the situation down there. ... He's had some success. He's taken control of the port (in Basra). But there's more work to do."
Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. will be as aggressive as possible to counter the increase in Iranian support for militias. He said the Iraqis "are in a position themselves to bring some pressures to bear on Iran."
"I think that one of the interesting developments of Prime Minister Maliki's offensive in Basra is that it has revealed to the Shia, particularly, in the Iraqi government, the level of Iranian malign influence in the south and on their economic heartline through Basra," Gates said in an interview aired Sunday.
"And so I think what has happened is that the hand of Iran has been exposed, in a way that perhaps it had not been before, to some of the Iraqi government," he said.
Gates also has acknowledged that future troop withdrawals will go more slowly than he had initially hoped last year. He told a Senate panel he expects Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in the war, to be able to make an assessment of further drawdowns by mid-September.
In the broadcast interview, Gates played down concerns that an extended U.S. presence in Iraq might lead to a confrontation with Iran.
"I think the chances of us stumbling into a confrontation with Iran are very low," he said. "We are concerned about their activities in the south. We are concerned about the weapons that they continue to send in to Iraq. But I think that the process that's under way is, as I said, headed in the right direction."
Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was struck during last week's hearings by the repeated references to Iran.
"Iran kept being mentioned. The fact that the Iranians are intruding," he said. "It was almost as if we were justifying our continued presence in Iraq with the fact that we may be in a conflict with Iran, and furthermore, the al-Qaida, wherever they may be. It's a very confusing picture to say the least."
"Because, essentially, we did not get into the overall status of our armed forces, our economy, and our ability to pay for this, quite apart from exactly who enemy is, what the priorities are, in terms of our expenditure of forces and money," Lugar said.
To Gates, "extremism" is the biggest threat in Iraq.
"The reason you don't hear much about al-Qaida is because our soldiers have been very successful, our soldiers and our marines, in taking them on, as have the Sunnis in Iraq, themselves," he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the administration's strategy of taking a "pause" before deciding whether a major drawdown was warranted. She noted that the U.S. has been in Iraq for more than five years and she blamed Republicans for not working with Democrats to change the course of the war.
"We have not been successful, because what we found out, really, is it's not just the president. It's the Republicans in Congress who are committed to this course of action, which I believe is a wrong course of action, and it will keep us in Iraq for many years to come, instead of taking us out, strengthening our military, regaining our reputation for security in the world.
"I've always said it was a mistake," said Pelosi, in comments aired Sunday. "Sadly, it's now a mistake that is five years old."
Hadley noted that the Iraqi government has been putting more diplomatic pressure on Iran, which he called a "good thing."
"We will continue to do with Iraqi security forces what we've been doing for some time. We will go after their surrogate operations in Iraq that are killing our forces, killing Iraqi forces," he said. "We will disrupt their networks by which they move fighters, weapons and funds in and around Iraq. And we will cut off as best we can the flow of fighters, weapons and arms into Iraq."
Regarding troop drawdowns, Hadley reiterated that Bush will give Petraeus the time that he needs to assess the security situation in Iraq.
"What we hope is that conditions on the ground will permit continuation of what we call return on success, and more U.S. forces will come out," he said.
Bush "has told them very clearly their only consideration is what they need to do to succeed in Iraq. And his objective is to leave Iraq in a situation at the end of his term where we have a strategy that is succeeding, that the American people can see progress, and to hand it over to the next administration, whether Republican or Democrat, so that they will inherit a strategy ... that is working," Hadley said.
Hadley spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Lugar appeared on CNN's "Late Edition," while Gates and Pelosi taped interviews Friday that were broadcast Sunday on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
10 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Hope Yen's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: United States , Iraq , Iran , Washington DC
 | General Challenged To Justify Iraq Deployment | CNN | Wed Apr 9 | 0 |
| Frustrated Senators See No Exit Signs | The Washington Post | Wed Apr 9 | 13 |
 | A Timeline of Iraq War, Troop Levels | Associated Press | Mon Apr 7 | 0 |
| Petraeus Faces Next President | Associated Press | Tue Apr 8 | 1 |
| Questions and Answers on Troops in Iraq | Associated Press | Mon Apr 7 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (23)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
15
8.0
3.6
{"commentId":1667051,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
He wants patience so that any bloodshed as a result of pulling out of Iraq will be during the next administration. That's all there is to it. What a tool.
{"commentId":1667051,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 5 votes
#1 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 4:41 AM EDT{"commentId":1667418,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
He wants patience so that any bloodshed as a result of pulling out of Iraq will be during the next administration. That's all there is to it. What a tool.
I doubt Gen Petraeus truly gives a damn about politics. Your contention that he's trying postpone a pullout from Iraq for political reasons is ridiculous.
{"commentId":1667418,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1667466,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
Seems a bit too coincidental that in 2004 he stated that there was progress in Iraq and that Iraqi leaders were stepping forward. The surge didn't work. The ethnic cleansing succeeded and those that feared for their lives (over a million) simply left Iraq. The longer we are in Iraq, the greater anti-American sentiment we create. We have no evidence that staying in Iraq for another X number of years will make the situation any better, and the general knows this is true.
My statement is not ridiculous, for these reasons and more.
{"commentId":1667466,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1667842,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
My husband was very lucky to have known and worked with the General in Iraq during one of his tours... Any soldier that has met Petraeus knows that his first priority is to maintain as safe of an environment for our soldiers as possible - not any special or enlarged allegiance to the president or the current administration... Therefore, I find your opinion insulting and entirely baseless... He's doing his job as a General and reporting the facts of what is going on... I have as of yet to see him paint a pretty face on the war or try to play favorites.
{"commentId":1667842,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1667899,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
Jazzman
#1.1 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 8:36 AM EDT
My thoughts exactly.
His role is not to discourage or encourage this war, but to give status and feedback on what is currently happening in Iraq. He is doing just that and simply because the status changes over time [as usually happens during a war] does not mean his previous feedback or reports were not accurate at the time that they were created. I do not support this war at all and wish that the Bush administration be tried in our courts for their lies and criminal acts. But, that does not mean I will throw our Generals under the bus simply because they're a part of this mess - they're just doing their jobs and I commend Patraeus - if you all did some research on the man you'd learn how good of a General and man in general he is and not deserving of some of the distasteful remarks in these threads...
{"commentId":1667899,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1668032,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
My statement is not ridiculous, for these reasons and more.
Its is ridiculous, because you originally tried to portray Gen Petraeus as having some political motive for wanting to complete the mission he was tasked with in Iraq.
The way it works is, Bush is Commander In Chief, and everyone under him in the US military has taken an oath to follow his orders in that capacity.
If you and others have a problem with the orders Bush gives to members of the US military, you should address it with your reps in Congress, and not the men in uniform.
Petraeus was summoned to Washington, I'm sure he didn't ask to be there, and I find his grilling by a bunch of publicity seeking, spineless, fake politicians a sham as well as a shame.
I believe most of the men in that room (as well as most on NV) have never been on a battlefield in their life, have no honor and no right to pass judgment on anyone in the US military.
{"commentId":1668032,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1668036,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
if you all did some research on the man you'd learn how good of a General and man in general he is and not deserving of some of the distasteful remarks in these threads...
Agreed.
{"commentId":1668036,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1668091,"authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
Jazz:
Great post.
{"commentId":1668091,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"wmolaw"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1668166,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
wmo,
I think many Americans don't understand how thankful we should be, and blessed we are that the most powerful and deadly military force in human history, does honor the oath they've taken to support the Constitution, and follow the orders of our elected civilian leaders.
So we have a peaceful election every 4 years, and all the political nonsense associated, to put a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
We could easily instead have some General occupying it, with his armed troops in the streets.
{"commentId":1668166,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1669298,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
I believe most of the men in that room (as well as most on NV) have never been on a battlefield in their life, have no honor and no right to pass judgment on anyone in the US military.
Because the only honorable thing one can do in life is kill people...
{"commentId":1669298,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1669406,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
...yet choosing to participate in the violence on behalf of those who can't stomach it...
I'd almost say there is little honor shown these days in this country[US] than in it's past.
Just the other day we gave the highest US medal to a soldier killed in battle. He was with two fellow comrades when a granade was thrown at the three... It hit his chest and without second thought - he immediately smothered the grenade - giving his life to save two.
You don't see or hear about that type of courage, honor, selfless action, etc. in Americans these days. Truly honorable and courageous Americans are few and far between... To insinuate that the last place we can really find honorable men is for the most part in war zones or humanitarian missions is pretty accurate - I think.
{"commentId":1669406,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1669448,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
You have a somewhat less than objective position, as far as the military goes - I think.
{"commentId":1669448,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1671643,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
jazzman646: I doubt Gen Petraeus truly gives a damn about politics. Your contention that he's trying postpone a pullout from Iraq for political reasons is ridiculous.
I like Dave Patraeus a lot. He's a soldier scholar -- if he'd been in charge at the outset this might look different today. However, don't kid yourself he's not an extremely political animal. You simply do not get the job he's got if you're not.
{"commentId":1671643,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1671753,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
jazzman646: The way it works is, Bush is Commander In Chief, and everyone under him in the US military has taken an oath to follow his orders in that capacity.
You're mixed up jazzman. The oath is to defend the Constitution form all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's not an oath to the commander in chief. Patraeus, and everyone who takes that oath, has a duty to disobey unconstitutional/illegal orders. He knows that, and so does everyone else who wears the uniform.
If you and others have a problem with the orders Bush gives to members of the US military, you should address it with your reps in Congress, and not the men in uniform.
Oh no. The members of the military are accountable to Congress, and to us, for the orders they choose to obey. You labor under a common delusion -- that the military owes its first allegiance to the president. Completely wrong -- completely unconstitutional -- but it has been gaining traction since WWII. It needs to come to a screeching halt before we find ourselves living not under a constitutional republic, but under a monarchy. And we're running out of time.
Your outrage that General Patraeus should have to answer to Congress is badly misplaced. Congress may very well be populated with the publicity seekers you describe, but Congress still exists, and as long as it does, generals and presidents will be accountable to it, and all of them will be accountable to We The People. Please re-order your understanding of these priorities. It's kind of important.
I believe most of the men in that room (as well as most on NV) have never been on a battlefield in their life, have no honor and no right to pass judgment on anyone in the US military.
George Bush, Dick "5 Deferments" Cheney, and every single neocon who's currently got U.S. foreign policy by the short hairs have also never been on a battlefield in their lives. I'd like to hear you decry the honor of that group just as loudly as you do that of elected representatives who are trying to keep the balance of power in this country's government from collapsing. They deserve all the condemnation we can heap on them for helping the president and his band of criminals do the horrendous things to, and with, the millitary that they've done. And they need all the help they can get now that they've been born again and are trying to right that wrong. They're pretty much all we've got. We might as well help them and never forget that there were plenty of them who tried very hard to prevent that when the vote was taken in October of 2001. There just weren't quite enough.
Bush & his cohorts are the people who are pimping all that's good and honorable about the military for their ugly purposes. That's who you should be mad at. Are you at all mad at them about that? They are accountable to you. They work for you. You pay their salaries and support their kingly lifestyles. If you did your job like they've done theirs you would have been so fired so long ago it should make your head spin. You're their employer. Demand accountabililty.
Congress is infuriatingly impotent in its attempts to reign them in, but they simply do not have the power to send the military into a war. That power belongs solely to the president. So let's give credit where credit is due here. Your righteous indignation belongs at the feet of the people guilty of this crime. Not the people trying to undo it.
{"commentId":1671753,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1673958,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
You're mixed up jazzman. The oath is to defend the Constitution form all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's not an oath to the commander in chief. Patraeus, and everyone who takes that oath, has a duty to disobey unconstitutional/illegal orders. He knows that, and so does everyone else who wears the uniform.
Prospero1, no disrepsect, BUT
I think you're the one who is confused. I've taken this oath (at least 4 times in my life - its has to also be taken each time a military member reenlists) and I know exactly what it says:
"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
Also I think you meant disobey unlawful orders, which has nothing to do with the oath, but is based on the UCMJ: 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order".
In each case, military personnel do have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and do have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the President that do not comply with the UCMJ.
In the case of Gen Petraeus, I doubt he could make a valid case at his court martial that he has been given an unlawful order by Bush, especially when this war in Iraq was originally voted on and approved by Congress
Your outrage that General Patraeus should have to answer to Congress is badly misplaced. Congress may very well be populated with the publicity seekers you describe, but Congress still exists, and as long as it does, generals and presidents will be accountable to it, and all of them will be accountable to We The People. Please re-order your understanding of these priorities. It's kind of important.
I don't have a problem with Gen Petraeus testifying before Congress. I have a problem with him having to testify before a Congress that is playing partisan political games with the issue of Iraq, and in a previous hearing, Democratic party members of Congress heaped personal insults on him. That's what I find dishonorable.
Congress is infuriatingly impotent in its attempts to reign them in
That's true, the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to halt the war in Iraq, but that's because to this point, the majority of Americans have decided not to give them a large enough majority in Congress, or control of the White House, to accomplish that. I hope you understand that. It's kind of important.
{"commentId":1673958,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1675162,"authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
No, the majority of Americans haven't. The religious "conservatives" that continue to support the idiot in chief are a large enough group to ensue that the will of the majority of Americans is not fulfilled. It's quite unfortunate.
{"commentId":1675162,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"Henryvii"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1675401,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
Wow, jazzman.
#1.14 - Wed Apr 9, 2008 6:41 PM EDT
Well put.
{"commentId":1675401,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1667053,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
With the Petraeus testimony approaching, only a subtle shift is expected in the GOP message. In addition to insisting that troops must stay in Iraq to fight the terrorists, which has been the party line for some time, Republicans are expected to talk more about the need for a comprehensive political settlement among Baghdad politicians. They believe that this tracks more closely with the voters' views that the U.S. commitment cannot be indefinite.
This has been about spin from day one, no surprise the strategy is to change the reporting.
{"commentId":1667053,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
#2 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 4:42 AM EDT{"commentId":1667086,"authorDomain":"zennhead"}
This is a understandable response. He's had plenty of time. There is no reconciliation because the Shi'a don't want to accommodate the Sunni. If we had been living with persecution, marginalization, and discrimination, we'd not be as willing to reconcile either. The Shi'a are the dominant group in Iraq. Nothing's going to alter that equation. It is idiotic to think that we can force it to happen. If this reconciliation is going to happen, it won't be on our time line. The economics of Iraq and the economics of our own nation will require a diminishment in deployed forces in Iraq. The time has come to withdraw enough forces that we stop the flow of a billion a day or whatever it is now. It doesn't matter what it is, in a sense, because the American people will continue to see their own economic situation worsen, not improve. We have had victory of sorts by the diminished number of deaths per day for US, and the American people need to feel they've tried hard on their own to make this happen. The inability of the average Shi'a to reconcile has limits, time frames, and willingness. We should count our blessings the violence has decreased for everyone, and begin a phase withdrawal with a new President.
{"commentId":1667086,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"zennhead"}
- 2 votes
#3 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 5:15 AM EDT{"commentId":1667178,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Ira Chernus warns democrats and American's about Petraeus' "surge" trap:
The Democrats, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, may find it irresistible to assault the general, and the president, with every argument they can muster in the hearings this week. However, a recent report suggests they may resist that impulse and treat the impact of the "surge" as an irrelevant issue.
Let's hope that report is right, because a debate focused on military success or failure is a trap, with Petraeus' testimony as the bait. After all, no debate in Congress will really be about the level of violence in Iraq. "Has the surge worked?" is just a symbolic way of asking: "Would you rather believe that America is a winner or a loser?" And in any battle over patriotic symbolism, the Republicans always seem to have the bigger guns.
So the Democrats would be smart to refuse the bait and insist that this is not an old-fashioned World War II-style conflict, where force can produce a clearcut winner. Then they could refocus the debate on two crucial truths: we have no right to be in Iraq; the sooner we get out, the sooner we can begin to heal the terrible damage the war has done to us here at home.
Gareth Porter warns that Petraeus will also try to foist this canard:
Iraqi rogues and a false proxy war
The strong resistance put up against United States and Iraqi forces in Basra was by rogue militiamen who have split from Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and come under Iranian control. That, anyway, is the line General David Petraeus is expected to follow in his congressional testimony. Yet there is no evidence such Iranian-backed special groups exist, and Tehran's real strategy in Iraq bears no resemblance to the one portrayed in the US proxy war narrative.
While the White House and the Pentagon Inc. secretly plan an open-ended military role.
{"commentId":1667178,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 3 votes
#4 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 6:54 AM EDT{"commentId":1667223,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
Zennhead:
It is time to get off that horse, shared by both class ideologies, liberalism and neocon apologists, that the failure of reconciliation, or the failure of the surge, or the failure of the illegal aggression and occupation is the Iraqi fault. These failures primarily belong to the U.S. imperial policy, and the war criminals, including Neocon General Patreus himself.
Maliki is on the ropes, as a collaborationist Nazi regime, that accomodated the illegal aggression, and then because he knew that the next elections would result in loss of support, by 70 percent of the Iraqis who want our Nazi asses out, he went after his own Shia coalition, and began a civil war to justify the murder of the opposition, the elimination of the Mehdi Army, to avoid his own political failure, and the failure of Amerikan Empire.
The rotten corporate Media, including NPR radio, falsely presented his act of aggression against the Mehdi forces, as necessary and inevitable, the tactical mistake of Maliki, without the knowledge and blessings of their Master Fuehrers, Ameirkan occupiers. This lie was paraded shamelessly on NPR Zionist radio, liberal hawk radio, neocon radio, when in fact the Amerikan aggressors knew of the attack while hiding behind Maliki's false "sovereignty to pretend this was exclusively their decision. Hiding also behind the real reasons Shias killing Shias, creating another civil war, this time not only by the Sunnis vs Shias over Amerikan occupation, but this time the Mehdi army calling for the end of the occupation by our Nazi militaristic fascist, imperial army.
The Mehdi army and forces are not saying anything more than the majority of Iraqis, Americans are saying, stop the occupation, stop the corrupt collaboration with these Nazi Amerikan forces. That would be the majority on both sides, except the corrupt imperial warmongering Corporate media which lies through its teeth, including so called public radio, NPR radio.
One example, to prove that the Amerikan corporate media, the two class parties here, and the military occupation forces have no grip on the word "sovereignty", distorting occupation to mean "sovereignty", collaboration, "sovereignty", is the recent Blackwater contract renewal by the class thugs here in the U.S. All these class forces here in the U.S. and its class shills, imperial apologists, pretend that Maliki is in control, and has the blessings of the Iraqi people....NOT!!!! Even Maliki has demanded that Amerikan corporate fascist killers, of the Blackwater redneck operation, should be prosecuted, and kicked out of this country, the beginning of the end of at least part of the rotten occupation.
Of course the military thugs, Nazis, ignored even their puppet's demand for an end to these corporate imperial brown shirts, and like the Nazis need them to carry on their surge, their occupation their illegal aggression, their class Empire. Neocon General Patreus will justify these criminal policies endlessly, and the appeasing two class parties, will finance in the billions, this occupation endlessly, while the Corporate Press shamelessly continues to lie, hide reality through omission, and NPR publc radio echoes the "expert idiots", ideological thugs, from its class think tanks that promote both the imperial polices of Amerikan Empire, and as Zionists, many of them, also justifies the warmongering against Iran, for Israeli, Zionist, nationalist imperial agendas.
Neocon General Patreus will justify every failure, every lie above to blame the Iranians, so that Amerikan Empire and its Zionist partner in crime, including the appeasing lying corporate press, and worthless two party system can continue to blame both the Iraqis and Iranians, for their failures, their occupation, illegal invasion, that belongs squarely on the war criminals here in the U.S.
{"commentId":1667223,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 7:22 AM EDT{"commentId":1667942,"authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
What I love is that there is tons of evidence that the surge did a lot of good for the region and while we had the surge in effect - Iraqi civilians felt safer. It was stated countless of times by top Iraqi officials that Iraqi militias expect us to begin removing large amounts of troops now or the latest early next year. So, we start removing troops - suddently the militia increases violence - American sheeple's response? It's that the surge did not work! Typical.
Either we work on splitting up Iraq into seperate territories to keep the different Iraqi sects at bay and from warring with each other or we bring in a ton of soldiers to begin a quick removal of all Americans in the area immediately. Most top military officials state that this is what needs to be done... Why isn't our administration listening?
{"commentId":1667942,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"arcanebliss"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Tue Apr 8, 2008 10:39 AM EDT{"commentId":1671470,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
Iraq has about $30 billion in surplus funds stored in U.S. banks, according to Levin.
Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.
While Iraq pays for fuel for its own troops, it has relied heavily on U.S. dollars to provide people with basic services, including more than $45 billion for reconstruction.
This is the point most seem to be missing. We are spending trillions in Iraq, while the oil companies are making a killing. ( Anyone who thinks its Iraqi money and not big oil's money is either delusional or misinformed).
{"commentId":1671470,"threadId":"246896","contentId":"1417343","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Wed Apr 9, 2008 9:17 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"246896","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
