Archive for the 'Iraq debacle' Category

Kossacks dpg and BTD note an interview yesterday with Ed Schultz with Senator Obama. While Obama and Schultz cover a lot of ground, it's the Iraq portion of the interview that is of particular interest.

Unfortunately, Obama punted on Iraq by playing a card that I've seen floated more and more frequently lately, the "we're being held hostage by a madman card." The problem, this talking point goes, is that even if Congress does act to get our troops out, Bush will probably just keep them there anyway.

Here's Obama's formulation of that ultimately defeatest point:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say "you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]" . . . .

So anything Congress might do will just be ignored by Bush anyway, so why bother to act? That's quite the governing philosophy for a Senator to live by. The basic truth is that Congress does indeed have the power to defund this war, a power recognized by both Bush and Cheney:

WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?

GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress....

WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?

GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.

"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee.... You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against, we better quit' " Cheney agreed. That would "validate the al-Qaeda view of the world," he added.

There is definitely an "I dare you to" posture behind those messages. But Congress, last time I read the Constitution, is in a position to take up that dare. Meaning that in this game of chicken, Congress is in the same position of power as the president. That's what holding the purse strings is all about.

And that's what being a coequal branch of government really boils down to. As the branch of government that speaks for the people, those people with the title of "Representative" are precisely the ones who should have their fingers in the wind. When they test those winds, they will find that the American people want a way out of Iraq. They will also find that more of the public supports defunding the war than those who oppose it. It's a slim majority in this poll (by Fox!), 45% to 44%, but its a number that is likely to keep increasing as this war continues to drag on.

There are few good options at this point for Iraq. The damage this administration has done to that country, to Afghanistan, to the entire region is incalculable. As is the damage done domestically. Can there be any other answer, domestically, than to bring an end it? That's not going to happen with a Congress that persists in the belief that it is not as powerful as the President.

Glenn Greenwald has a great post on Cheney's bizarre demand that journalists in the pool on his return journey from Pakistan refer to him as a "senior administration official" even though he clearly identifies himself throughout the discussion.

In fact, the very first words out of his mouth were: "The reason the President wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world." He discussed at length the comments he made recently about Nancy Pelosi wanting to "validate Al Qaeda's strategy. So even though there was not a single security reason for the anonymity, Cheney insisted upon it anyway....

Cheney's petty demand that he not be identified -- like a petty tyrant's demand that his name never pass anyone's lips -- is just an assertion of secrecy and authoriatarian power for its own sake (even under the rule of Emperor Hirohito, "commoners were no longer forbidden to speak his name or look at his face"). But unlike Hirohito, Cheney is an elected public servant of American citizens and this attempt to prohibit journalists from attributing his own words to him is just bizarrely megalomaniacal and contemptuous, particularly in light of how he virtually went out of his way in the very first sentence to make clear that it was him.

The heart of the discussion with reporters was devoted to the GWOT and the role Cheney sees Iraq playing in it. This is where we get a glimpse into the bizarre workings of the Cheney White House brain trust in formulating foreign policy. Greenwald:

Towards the beginning of the interview, Cheney was referring to his meetings with Prime Minister Karzai and President Musharraf when, out of the blue, he began arguing that those leaders would somehow be endangered in their fight against terrorism if we withdrew from Iraq:

I've often spoken and would reiterate again today, when you think about the debate at home, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle arguing that we need to get out of Iraq, then you go spend some time with our allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you can't help but be convinced that that would have a devastating impact, devastating consequences for what they're trying to do, what they've agreed to do in terms of their ongoing efforts with us as allies in these struggles in this part of the world.

Nothing makes less sense than that. By all accounts, the reason we face a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in that region is because there are insufficient troops there -- a troop deficiency we have suffered since our invasion of Iraq. In fact, Cheney himself, when asked to elaborate on the claim he was making, made clear that Karzai and Musharraf's problem is a lack of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan:

One of the reasons I think Karzai was upbeat was because of the United States' economic and financial commitment. We've asked for significant sums for him this year in the budget, the commitment of an additional brigade of troops to beef up what's already there, that's all taken as a sign of our commitment, specifically to Afghanistan. They worry about that.

The idea that withdrawing from Iraq would endanger Karzai and Musharraf's fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is just laughable.

Laughable, indeed. I'm sure Karzai is spending a lot of time analyzing the adminstration's commitment to the Iraq debacle, leaving the force in Afghanistan understaffed and ill-equipped, facing a resurgent Taliban. I'm sure that Karzai takes great comfort in his country's virtual abandonment by the U.S. Of course, you could arge that withdrawing from Iraq would make it less of an attraction for al Qaeda, perhaps sending would-be al Qaeda terrorists back to Afghanistan and Pakistan to kill their own people instead of coalition forces and hapless Iraqis. We're fighting them in Iraq so Karzai and Musharraf don't have to fight as many of them?

As Greenwald says, Cheney's arguments for the continued occupation of Iraq are "sophistry of the most transparent order." And evidence that he will continue to do and to say whatever he thinks necessary to continue this occupation, regardless of the will of the American people to end it. I'll let Greenwald have the final word on this, because he says it so much better than I could:

Dick Cheney is an increasingly embittered and reckless government official. And the further damage that can be done from a large-scale military presence in Iraq is more than ample reason why a withdrawal from Iraq -- and sooner rather than later -- is the most urgent political priority we have.

In true full Broderism, the likes of Reps. Allen Boyd, Dennis Moore, and Mike Ross are trumpeting their moderating influences on the Democratic party in today's Roll Call [subscription]. Here's a choice bit from Boyd:

"Let's face it, we all know that both parties, in large part, are controlled by extremes that in some cases are different from what we might represent in the middle," Boyd said. "We don't think the Speaker's philosophy or her particular district's philosophy is important. What we think is important is the management style she uses. How she is inclusive with us, how she acts."

We all know that Nancy Pelosi is an extremist? Only Allen Boyd and his band of 44 Blue Dogs represent the middle? The remaining 190 Dems are a bunch of far-left whacked out extremists? Yes, Allen Boyd, because you have such a positive attitude toward your party and because you are so helpful to the Democratic cause, by all means, Speaker Pelosi should include you. Just think about what you did for us on Social Security. You were so absolutely helpful on that one, being the only Democrat to support Bush's Social Security privatization plan. What a triumph of moderation and bipartisanship that one was.

In all seriousness, the arrogance with which Allen and his merry band of Blue Dog Dems are approaching their role in the party is an obvious problem for leadership. Consider this:

On a recent weekday afternoon, leaders of the moderate group gathered in the office of Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the coalition's communications chairman, to discuss their place in the new majority, as well as their aims for the 110th Congress. In addition to Ross and Moore, the group included Democratic Reps. Allen Boyd (Fla.), the group's administration chairman, Stephanie Herseth (S.D.), the group's whip, and John Tanner (Tenn.), a co-founder of the Blue Dogs and a current co-chairman of its political action committee.

"I think one of the things that's different now, I think there was a time when Blue Dogs were looked at by some Democrats as though perhaps they weren't really Democrats and I think that's no longer the case," Ross said.

"I think people are recognizing that not only do we represent the middle, which is where we believe the American people are and certainly where we are, I think people within our own Caucus now recognize that we have created the majority and that we have done some pretty heavy lifting as a group to ensure that Democrats did regain a majority...."

In addition, Boyd asserted that Democratic leadership has "been very inclusive when it comes to the committee assignments. They have been very inclusive when it comes to consulting us on legislation. We meet with them on a regular basis."

Did we become a parliamentary government while America wasn't looking? Do we now have a coalition government in which this splinter group of Democrats, a minority of the voting bloc, can work against the will of the majority to gum up the works?

But wait, it gets better:

"We think this is the group that represents where the greatest bloc of Americans are — toward that big middle. Not far left, not far right, but that big middle, that's going to be able to get things done," he added. "And it's going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis."

Did they learn nothing from the previous 12 years in the wilderness? This is not a Republican party interested in bipartisanship. The Bush administration is not interested in working with any Democrats. The Republican party and the Bush administration is interested in using the Blue Dogs as a wedge in the Democratic majority. They are using the Blue Dogs to further nothing but the Republican cause.

The Blue Dog Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are on the vanguard of the new Democratic party--the Democrats didn't so much win in many of these districts as the Republicans lost, and the Republicans lost in large part because of the absolutely disastrous Iraq war. A war which the American people expect a new Democratic Congress to do its utmost to get us out of. And how do they repay that trust the American people have given them? They work actively to derail the Murtha plan, a plan which, btw, a majority of the American public supports!

The Blue Dogs have led the way on some important fiscal issues, taking the lead on pay-as-you-go funding limitations being passed in the first 100 hours. They should stick with the fiscal issues, those core issues for them. And stay the hell out of the Iraq debate if they can do nothing more than splinter the caucus.

For reasons completely unclear to just about any thinking person, the Wall Street Journal has again turned over some of its op-ed real estate to Lieberman. On Iraq. Because he has such a good track record on that topic. Let's revisit December, 2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years.

Here's Lieberman today:

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital....

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

It's a new plan! A good plan! Even better than a plan, it's a strategy! But still, for Lieberman the worst that can happen already has:

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

The loyal opposition should apparently be like good children, seen but not heard, in Joe's world. On the most important issue facing this country in decades, Lieberman thinks Congress should continue in it's rubber-stamping ways. Cuz that's got us so far in the past four years.

As of today, 3,150 American men and women have died in Iraq. The deaths have been felt in communities all over the country, but nowhere has the impact been greater than in rural areas, where opportunities are limited and the military has a strong hold. The military draws disproportionately from rural areas, and rural areas disproportionately suffer the losses of war.

Nearly half of the more than 3,100 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq have come from towns like McKeesport, where fewer than 25,000 people live, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. One in five hailed from hometowns of less than 5,000.

The Census Bureau said 56 percent of the population in 2005 lived in towns under 25,000 and in unincorporated areas, but it could not provide the number of people living only in communities of less than 25,000. The 2000 census showed 16 percent of the population lived in unicorporated rural areas.

Many of the hometowns of the war dead aren't just small, they're poor. The AP analysis found that nearly three quarters of those killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.

Some are old factory towns like McKeesport, once home to U.S. Steel's National Tube Works, which employed 8,000 people in its heyday. Now, residents' average income is just 60 percent of the national average, and one in eight lives below the federal poverty line.

On a per capita basis, states with mostly rural populations have suffered the highest fatalities in Iraq. Vermont, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Louisiana and Oregon top the list, the AP found.

It's a cliche, but one based in truth, that everyone in a small town knows one another. An untimely death reverberates through a town or a village. It's your cousin, or the kid you went to school with since kindergarten, the teenager who bagged your groceries or who's hair you cut. Even in extremely conservative rural areas, so much loss takes a toll on the ability to believe in the cause. That doubt has taken a dramatic toll on support for Bush:

While support for the war in rural areas initially was high, there has been a sharp decline in the past three years. AP-Ipsos polls show that those in rural areas who said it was the right decision to go to war dropped from 73 percent in April 2004 to 39 percent now. In urban areas, support declined from 43 percent in 2004 to 30 percent now.

Marty Newell, chief operating officer of the Whitesburg, Ky.-based Center for Rural Strategies, said rural areas supported the war early on because so many of their young men and women were fighting it.

"The reason that support is dwindling now is the same reason that support would've been strong before, and that is that we know a lot more about it," he said. "We know what the real costs are and we know what the real story is. ... Every day there's another small town that has one of their own come home less than whole, and there are a lot of small towns like that."

All across the country, in every community in every state, Americans want this war to end. We just need our representatives to catch up with us.

Another chlorine gas dirty bomb was detonated in Baghdad on Wednesday, unfortunately confirming suspicions raised on Tuesday that the chlorine gas attacks are becoming a new part of the insurgents' arsenal. In Wednesday's attack, insurgents blew up a pickup carrying chlorine tanks.

Iraqi and American officials said the use of chlorine seemed aimed at bringing a new level of fear and havoc to Iraq as a new security plan for Baghdad takes shape.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman, said the attacks highlighted the fluidity of insurgent tactics in Iraq, dominated by militant groups that often notice and repeat attacks that attract the most attention and cause the most suffering.

Insurgents have shifted tactics to focus on helicopters, and on Wednesday one group forced down an American Black Hawk helicopter, the eighth such incident since Jan. 20. Roadside bombs have been adapted to punch through heavily armored Humvees. Attacks on Americans also now include coordinated assaults from multiple locations, with a mix of weapons and in at least one case, counterfeit American uniforms and vehicles.

"The enemy is adaptive," Colonel Garver said. "The enemy wants to win...."

The American military also said a soldier had been killed by gunfire in a northern neighborhood of Baghdad and a marine had died from combat in Anbar Province, where American troops were battling Sunni insurgents. Both died Tuesday.

Meanwhile, despite the increased military effort, 20 bodies were found Wednesday in the capital, an Interior Ministry official said. In addition to the chlorine attack, four bombs ripped through areas of the city, killing at least six people, while mortar shells rained down on a Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad, leaving three people dead.

While it's hard to imagine the chaos in Iraq could get any worse, it is getting worse and that trend will only continue. The "new security plan," Bush's escalation, has only served to displace the violence temporarily. The debacle is only going to worsen in the coming weeks and months, and the escalation will accomplish nothing more than endangering even more American men and women's lives. How many more will have to be sacrificed before our representatives find a way to end it?