Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Administration sources say President Barack Obama plans this week to name CIA Director Leon Panetta to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, would take the CIA chief's job.
The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes are not final.
The changes would probably take effect this summer. Gates has already said he will leave this year.
The officials say Obama is expected to also announce that Lt. Gen. John Allen would replace Petraeus as Afghanistan commander, and that diplomat Ryan Crocker will be the next U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan.
The changes are expected to be announced Thursday at the White House.
anybody see any real change here...? hmmmmm... didn't think so...
The United States inaugurated its largest embassy ever in the heart of the Green Zone on Monday, officially opening the fortress-like compound that was built as a testament to America's commitment to Iraq.
Addressing an inauguration ceremony under tight security, Ambassador Ryan Crocker said the $700 million embassy was testimony to America's long-term friendship with Iraq, where about 146,000 U.S. troops are deployed.
"From this embassy in the years to come, we look forward to building our partnership and contributing to the future," Crocker said.
meanwhile...
Attacks once again rocked Baghdad a day after a suicide bomber killed at least 38 people at a Shiite shrine just four miles north of the site of the new embassy. Four bombs exploded in different parts of Baghdad just before noon on Monday, killing four people and wounding 19.
i hope those occupying the seats of power in the REAL iraqi government feel comfortable in their new home...
Thousands of followers of Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr peacefully protested across southern Iraq on Friday, according to McClatchy. They prayed and then stood silently in solidarity against the security agreement being negotiated by PM Nuri al-Maliki with George W. Bush.
Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa
Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa
more from professor cole...
On both the Iraqi and American side, this agreement is being characterized as a mere understanding between two executives. It is not being categorized as a treaty and there is no plan to submit it either to the Iraqi parliament or to the US Congress. It seems that the Bush team hopes it will take on the force of law just by virtue of existing and having been signed by the two leaders.
[...]
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that there is broad Sunni and Shiite uneasiness with the agreement, even inside Iraqi governing circles.
Al-Hayat says that those familiar with the current draft of the agreement says that it speaks of the establishment of 400 US military sites and bases through the country, of legal immunity for American troops and citizens, and an abrogation of any undertakings previously made, to share in the reconstruction of the country.
Another source told al-Hayat that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is pressing for language permitting permanent US bases, and removal of other language forbidding the US to attack a third country from Iraqi soil. (This source does not sound reliable to me. US officials have repeatedly said they do not want "permanent" bases, and the provision disallowing the use of Iraqi soil as a launching pad for one country to attack another is in the Iraqi constitution.
so, if ambassador crocker is pressing for u.s. bases, listen to senior iraq advisor at the u.s. state department, david satterfield, categorically deny it in this al jazeera interview...
somebody's lyin' through their teeth and, given the past seven-plus years of the bush administration, i'm not inclined to point the finger at al-hayat...
Petraeus, the Iraq circus ringmaster, leads the chorus in indicting Iran
yeah, it's not only about making goddam sure the u.s. stays in iraq for the next 10,000 years, it's also about making goddam sure that every possible piece of groundwork is laid for our NEXT war against iran... bastard sons-of-bitches...
then we have THE SUPREME GRAND EXALTED BASTARD SON-OF-A-BITCH, JOE LIEBERMAN...
"[A]s I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there's a kind of 'hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq' and most of all 'speak of no progress' in Iraq.
[...]
Hey, let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give some credit for that."
[...]
Naturally, Lieberman was quick to inject Iran into these proceedings, dutifully asking the leading question, "Let me ask you first, are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?"
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
[...]
"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.
"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.
talk...? why, THAT'S only for WUSSIES... REAL AMERICANS go to war...
Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.
talking is free, easy to do, and might actually accomplish something, but since it doesn't feed the giant, gaping maw of the government-military-industrial corporatocracy, why the hell would we want to TALK, fercryinoutloud...?
In a reprise of their testimony last September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker plan to tell Congress today and tomorrow that security has improved in Iraq and that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has taken steps toward political reconciliation and economic stability.
[...]
Despite considerable U.S. expenditures on oil and electricity infrastructure, oil exports and the supply of electricity and other services have not risen significantly since 2004. In early April, according to State Department statistics, the electricity supply met 58 percent of demand, compared with 66 percent a year earlier. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported last month that "millions of Iraqis have insufficient access to clean water, sanitation and health care."
[...]
Although the administration has put a positive face on the offensive -- describing it as evidence that Maliki's government and the Iraqi military are capable of independent, decisive action -- U.S. military and administration officials privately draw a more mixed picture. They judge Iraqi forces, despite five years of U.S. training, as ill prepared for the mission, which lacked cohesive planning and ultimately ended in a draw, at best, with the Sadrists. U.S. air power was called in to back flailing government forces three days into the operation.
A senior U.S. officer in Iraq described Maliki's action as "both bold and impulsive/hasty." While some Iraqi troops "fought well," he wrote in an e-mail, others were "largely ineffective." Up to 1,000 army and police personnel reportedly either deserted or refused to fight. In the National Police, which is known to be sympathetic to Sadr, "hundreds" of officers were fired, one administration official said.
reuters isn't totally in clown territory either, but they're pretty damn close too...
The top U.S. commander in Iraq presents a long-awaited progress report to Congress on Tuesday but will offer little hope for improved security before a new American president takes over in January.
All three contenders for the U.S. presidency will be among the senators questioning Gen. David Petraeus, who is expected to say he will interrupt a series of troop withdrawals in July to evaluate security conditions.
That decision, made as rising violence threatens to unwind gains made last year, could leave more than 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq though to the end of President George W. Bush's term.
In testimony over two days, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will assess the uneven progress made in a year-long "surge" of force meant to create the calm for Iraqi politicians to advance legislation and factions to reconcile.
The upturn in violence has thrust Iraq back to the forefront of campaigns for the November presidential election.
i watched cnn's michael ware interviewing ryan crocker this morning (tuesday morning in afghanistan, monday evening in the u.s.) and, even though i happen to have a lot of respect for michael ware, i was terribly disappointed in the softball questions he lobbed to the ambassador... (you can watch here...)
[A]fter years of intensive training by American advisors and an investment of $22 billion dollars, US military spokesmen are once again left trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster (from which they were rescued thanks to negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and advisors to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by General Qassem Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's terrorist watch list). Think irony. "From what we understand," goes the lame American explanation, "the bulk of these [deserters] were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon."
This week, with surge commander General David Petraeus back from Baghdad's ever redder, ever more dangerous "Green Zone," here are a few realities to keep in mind as he testifies before Congress:
1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse 2. The Bush administration has no learning curve. 3. The "success" of the surge was always an expensive illusion, essentially a Ponzi scheme, for which payment will someday come due. 4. A second hidden surge, not likely to be discussed in the hearings this week, is now under way. 5. A reasonably undertaken but speedy total withdrawal from Iraq is the only way out of this morass.
I am always astounded at the combination of unrealistic optimism and foolish gullibility that marks political discourse on the Right in Washington. We were being told by Glen Lowry at the National Review that Sadr was on the ropes and on the verge of disbanding the Mahdi Army because the other political factions had turned on him, and that the others had had their militias join the regular security forces.
So let us get this straight. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought off thousands of regular Iraqi army troops in Basra and Baghdad, and perhaps thousands of those troops deserted rather than fight. So the Mahdi Army won big and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lost. Also the US military trainers of the Iraqi troops lost face.
So the next thing we hear is that al-Maliki is talking big and demanding that the Mahdi Army be dissolved. Usually you get to talk big if you win the military battle, not if you lose.
[...]
The Baghdad fighting is the worst in about a year.
imho, judy collins has the best rendition of "send in the clowns" ever recorded by anyone...
Well, now we’ve heard from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker and President George W. Bush, and it appears that the Surge has succeeded — succeeded in guaranteeing that the Iraq War will drag on for the last 16 months of the Bush presidency at a cost of another 1,600 American dead and $13 billion a month.
[...]
It’s a long journey from now to January 20, 2009, and the blood of many Americans and even more Iraqis will flow freely and stain the hands of those who allow this insane war to continue at the behest of a stubborn, unseeing, unthinking man from Crawford, Texas.
In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare. But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:
Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
and...? and...?
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) announced today that he will be asking Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to call Fallon to testify on “his views on the region.” Webb decried the lack of independence in Petraeus’s reporting, observing that there are “a lot of control factors going on that haven’t been visible” from the one-sided testimony of Petraeus:
WEBB: And there’s something of a kabuki going on right now. You know, the Petraeus report was brought in. On the one hand they’re calling it independent; on the other, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, from my understanding, gave a one-hour exclusive interview to Fox News after their first day of testimony. […]
So it was a very narrow and focused two days of hearings…we need to hear from people like Admiral Fallon and others to get a sense of how the region is in play. … He was, by many accounts, questioning keeping these troop levels this high. […]
So I’m going to be recommending to Senator that we get Admiral Fallon in and get his views on the region.
damn straight...! nobody was thinking clearly or fallon would have already been scheduled to testify instead of simply going along with bush's way... but, hey...! it's our roll-over congress, so i guess it's par for course...
Another day, another pile of fresh, steaming bullshit
another load of bollocks...
Ronald Brownstein:
Partisan bickering won't end the war How can Americans lecture Iraqis about 'reconciliation' when we can't even manage it at home? September 12, 2007
Not for the first time, self-awareness was in short supply across Washington during this week's marathon congressional hearings on Iraq with Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
The one point that drew agreement from Republicans and Democrats alike was that Iraq's political leaders have too often failed to transcend their narrow sectarian interests to forge compromises in the national interest.
Pot, meet kettle.
Here in the U.S., the two parties are doing much the same thing. President Bush and congressional Democrats are each so determined to win the argument over Iraq that they have lost sight of their joint interest in finding a way forward that can attract broad and lasting support from a public disillusioned and dangerously polarized over the war. More than ever, the parties this week structured the debate as if it were an electoral campaign. Each asked Americans to ponder only the pieces of the picture most congenial to its arguments.
he's right about one thing - both parties are trying to gain political advantage, but it sure as hell ain't "AMERICANS" who are bickering... we, the people, are pretty remarkably unified in our opinions... we want the goddam war over, the killing to stop, and our troops to come home, and our esteemed congressfolks ain't listening to a single thing we say... they have ceased to even PRETEND they're listening, and that's nothing that a bogus spirit of "bipartisanship" is going to fix...
A "first indication" of the White House bowing to political pressure in Iraq? 110% baloney
why anyone would even bother to print this drivel is totally beyond me...
The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.
It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.
how many fracking "first indications" have there been...? lessee, "first indications" we've been promised for two unendurable presidential terms...
compromise
bipartisanship
willingness to change course
openness
frank two-way dialogue
facing reality
flexibility
working with congress
working with our allies
diplomacy
seeking input from a wide range of sources
and, of course...
troop withdrawal
and here's precisely why it's drivel...
reason #1...
So far, the concepts are entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq ... Those generals and other commanders have made it clear that they are operating on a significantly slower clock than officials in Washington...
reason #2...
The officials cautioned that no firm plans have emerged from the discussions.
and the biggest reason of all, reason #3...
The officials declined to be quoted for attribution because they were discussing internal deliberations that they expected to evolve over several months.
if we've learned anything over the past 6 1/2 years, it's that quoting anonymous sources means 1) it's most likely spin, and/or 2) somebody's trying to push the bush in a direction he has no intention of going... on this one, i'm leaning toward the latter... why...? well, gee, read these snippets and tell me i'm wrong...
Officials say proponents of reducing the troops and scaling back their mission next year appear to include Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They have been joined by generals at the Pentagon and elsewhere who have long been skeptical that the Iraqi government would use the opportunity created by the troop increase to reach genuine political accommodations.
Any change of course “is going to be the president’s decision,” Mr. Gates said, but one greatly influenced by assessments from General Petraeus and the new American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, who are to provide an assessment of the situation in September.
well, then, if it's "the president's decision," nobody's going anywhere... and, if bush listens to petraeus, something i would highly doubt since petraeus was hired to listen to BUSH, we're definitely not going to see a pull-down... here's odierno, who reports to petraeus...
General Odierno, who has pushed for extending the troop increase into next year, noted that units were in place or available to continue that effort through next April.
gosh, i had no idea so much information could be gleaned between the lines of a wapo story... it's truly amazing what isn't said...
[UPDATE]
with thanks to atrios for pointing the way, you can go visit glenn greenwald who has a whole shitpot full of OTHER very good reasons why this is drivel...
An alternative look at NEWS THAT MATTERS: current events, politics, opinion, perspective, discussion, analysis, issues, debate, and insight - national and global.
