Shlonkom Bakazay?

Update: Please sign the petition.

Free Khalid Jarrar Now!!!
Target: Faiz Al-Gailani Counselor / Deputy Chief of Mission Embassy of Iraq
Sponsor: Roey Rosenblith

A few days ago a member of the international blogging community named Khalid Jarrar, and Iraqi blogger http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com/ was picked up by Mokhabarat (iraqi intelligence) at his university and remains under custody.

SIGNATURES: 370

We the undersigned demand that the security forces that have detained Khalid Jarrar immediatly release him, and that a full scale investigation be conducted into how it came to pass that an individual can be held captive for the sole reasoning of expressing their views. It behooves us as American citizens whose troops are occupying Iraq to demand that Iraq be adminstered in a fashion that protects individual rights.�


I thought my update from yesterday had published, but it hadn't. Here it is once again. My computer has been freezing up. Turns out I needed a defragging. All set now. There are approximately 370 signatures now and we're going to get many many more. Visit, Give Us Our Khalid Back, for more updates on the situation.

*******

I'm going to go ahead and go public with this blog in order to possibly get a few more people to send emails, letters...and to make phone calls on behalf of Khalid. You may go here to get your specific congressional representative's number and address. Just enter your zipcode on the front page and you'll be able to find the information. You will also be able to find your senator's information there, too.

Here's the Iraqi government's consular information. The email is bouncing back, but keep trying and send hard copy letters to the following address. Thanks to Juan Cole for posting this information. I made this blog earlier, thought better of going out with it, but then thought if I could get even a few people to help Khalid and send some letters and emails to their representative, then it was worth taking all the possible trolling. Anyway, it's just the right thing to do in this moment of time.

Please give us our Khalid back.

1801 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 483-7500

Embassy hours: Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 5 PM
Consular Section hours: Tuesday-Thursday 10 AM - 3 PM

Please note: iraqia.washington@netzero.com will continue to operate. However, the new general e-mail address is admin@iraqiembassy.org.

Ambassador's Office
Fax: (202) 462-5066

Faiz Al-Gailani
Counselor / Deputy Chief of Mission
Fax: (202) 462-0564 '

The summary:

If the prerequisites for US military withdrawal from Iraq are the building of an effective fighting force and the Iraqis being capable of defending themselves, American troops may be here for a long, long time. What I saw of the Iraqi forces on the ground was sobering.

The whole of it. And on a similar note from an Australian army officer who trained soldiers:

I could go on and on. But I think you might get the message : the training system for Iraqi soldiers is a very sad joke. Rumsfeld's pronouncements about the number of "trained" soldiers are ridiculous and wicked lies. The man is not in touch with reality.

Blasted, my sleep pattern is jilted.

A useful wikipedia page with an exhorbitant number of links.

Here's a wiki page about response to the London bombings.

As I find more links I'm going to put them up.

I never thought I'd throw my hat in for Jeremy Greenstock, but here it is. Another sign facism is creeping up the pole which is firmly lodged in freedom's behind. Another feather is taken out of the cap of accountability.

A controversial fly-on-the wall account of the Iraq war by one of Britain's most senior former diplomats has been blocked by Downing Street and the Foreign Office.

Publication of The Costs of War by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN during the build-up to the 2003 war and the Prime Minister's special envoy to Iraq in its aftermath, has been halted. In an extract seen by The Observer, Greenstock describes the American decision to go to war as 'politically illegitimate' and says that UN negotiations 'never rose over the level of awkward diversion for the US administration'. Although he admits that 'honourable decisions' were made to remove the threat of Saddam, the opportunities of the post-conflict period were 'dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution'.

Regarded as a career diplomat of impeccable integrity, during his time in post-invasion Iraq, Greenstock became disillusioned with the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Paul Bremer. Their relationship had deteriorated by the time Greenstock returned to Britain.

The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

I've been informed by Riverbend, Raed, Faiza and Najma that our Khalid has been taken from us.

Give us our Khalid back.

My thoughts and the thoughts of my family are with you, Khalid, in this difficult time.

Bush falls to new lows in various categories.

40% support bush's handling of Iraq*

36% think the country is going in the right direction

35% approve of bush's handling of social security*

42% support bush's handing of economy*

magic number : bush's Job Approval rating :) is 42%- a new low (43% June)

59% Disapprove of bush's handling of Iraq

59% think the country is going in the wrong direction

61% do not approve of bush's handling of social security*

56% do not support bush's handling of economy*

magic number : bush's Job Disapproval rating :( is 56%*- a new high (55% June)

* indicates new low or new high

Poll was taken from Monday through Wednesday (July 11-13),
with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%

July's AP Poll

I heard this exact, and I mean exact, same thing from a friend of my family that had just returned from Iraq. [Independent]

"During the past two years, people could make money in Iraq on a scale that would astonish a Colombian drug lord," said an Iraqi politician who, like many, wanted to remain anonymous. "To protect the amounts of money they made, these people will kill very easily."

I hope I can find a transcript of it.

UPDATE: I was emotional when I first heard about so many Iraqi children being killed at one time, so I reacted without thinking clearly about the terrorists that carried out this horrendous act. I was more concerned about the stupidity (which I still think is stupidity) regarding the American soldiers giving candy to so many children at one time. That combined with the fact that when London happened (and yes, my sister was a block and a minute away from being in one of the bombs), everybody--rightly so--talked and talked about it...yet when this incident with the Iraqi children happened, it just sort of faded away like all reporting of Iraq.

Now that I'm thinking more clearly I'd like to state my opinion on the matter. And this is thanks to a cousin who has called me and other Iraqi bloggers out on ignoring the facts. Fact 1: This act was carried out by a terrorist that deserved to die before he killed 24 Iraqi children. 2: There is no way one could justify these attacks in my eyes. The children may have been used to one degree or another, but it doesn't mean one shouldn't condemn those who initiated the attack. Smell my finga?

So, I am against the terrorists that destroyed families on this terrible day. On the other hand, I don't think it was bright to be giving sweets to so many Iraqi children when they knew the threat was high. The persons that deserve the heft of the blame are clearly the bastards that detonated the bomb that killed the Iraqi children.

I am now especially angered by those that don't recognize the difference. And I will take the piss out of you if you're one of these persons. Regardless, I do also reiterate my opinion that there must be a stop to the practice of handing out sweets to large groups of Iraqi children to avoid such incidents from EVER EVER occurring again.

* * * * * * * *

Even IF the intentions were only good, let me please ask American soldiers to STOP giving large groups of children candy. Where is the outrage, then? Was it even mentioned on CNN after the day it happened? Will American troops stop this practice in light of this barbarism? Or will they continue to put innocent Iraqi children at risk? Or will they accuse those children of being terrorists because they were deliberately baiting American troops into a trap that injured or killed only 1 or 2 soldiers?

And sure, maybe it's a situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"...but please, whatever. JUST STOP THIS PRACTICE RIGHT NOW. Give to children in smaller groups to avoid a situation where 24 of THEM can be wiped off the face of the earth.

And, again, WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Oh, then there's the lock up the Iraqis in the metal box like they were animals and let them suffocate to death. Oh, ooops, you didn't mean to...so, it was an accident. So, you mustn't be accountable. Yes, Prof. Cole, exactly like Ghassan Kanafani's "Rijal bil Shamas" ( "Men in the Sun" ). I recommend you read this incredible story. He's a truly incredible writer.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE?

ARE IRAQIS NOT HUMANS, TOO?

WHERE IS THE FRICKIN OUTRAGE THEN?

They've found out, BBC World is reporting, the bombers were both suicide bombers and they were UK nationals, 3 of them known to be of Pakistani origin. Of course, this is early...but if true, it's huge. They were supposidly blowing themselves up in the name of Islam. I hate extremists. All of them.

But when you have young men (one of them was perhaps 19) who were born and raised in the UK blowing themselves up in the streets, then you have no choice but to address the underlying root causes of terrorism. I believe the UK and the people of the UK are more mentally equipped to move forward in this area.

Thanks to Billmon...Pat Lang is a former Middle East expert at the Defense Intelligence Agency. [original source]

Well, folks, I received this from an active duty officer with experience in the field. Just how stupid can we become? Eliot Cohen has an OP/ED in the W Post today in which he “examines his conscience” on the whole subject of the “thinking” that has governed the war. The occasion for this is the imminent deployment of his infantry officer son to the war that he helped create AND screw up. He has learned something. It is clear that others have not.

Pat Lang

“To: Patrick Lang
Subject: RE: Anyone like Juan Cole in the FBI?

Sir:

I am in -------------------------------------------------------.

FYI- Juan Cole's site is being blocked at Ft ---------- and other installations by the thought police. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Fred”

From: Patrick Lang [mailto:ismoot@turcopolier.com]
Sent: Sat 7/9/2005 3:25 PM
To: Patrick Lang
Subject: Anyone like Juan Cole in the FBI?

I think it's important to make note of it. Certain people are averse to having soldiers know what's really going. Me oh my, war never changes.

VIDEO UPDATE: Thanks to Norm at onegoodmove, there are these two brilliant videos from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. First watch this, then this.

Not only is the Cheney administration the best recruiter for Al-Qaeda, they continue to lie to the American people. Not to mention the small lie about WMD in Iraq to the entire world...

Rove has been caught. Now, we will know for sure if Americans are living in quasi-fascism or if there is still such thing as accountability. Democracy is dead without accountability. And so far, so many cabinet officials have been derelict in their duties and have not only not been held to account, but they've been given awards and promotions.

So when you can lie and not be held to account, how can you call America a democracy? It simply isn't. After the Rove affair, we'll know exactly where we stand.

Armando of dK,

While the Right Wing seeks to defend Karl Rove by exploring the technicalities of the laws against exposing the identity of CIA agents, it is important to remember what the Bush Administration indisputably has already done in this affair -- lied to the American people.

Two years ago:

QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that? McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

McClellan then:

No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

Two years ago, Scott McClellan lied on behalf of Karl Rove and/or the President or McClellan was lied to by Karl Rove and/or the President. It can not be disputed now that Karl Rove did indeed "leak classified information." McClellan denied this fact two years ago. Who told McClellan to tell this lie to the American people? Was it Rove and/or Bush? Why do I speculate as to whether the President was involved in this lie to the American people? Very simple. Karl Rove STILL works for the President. He has not been fired. Forget for a moment whether a crime has been committed. The Special Prosecutor will determine that. What we know TODAY is that the Bush Administration lied to the American people. The question NOW is who directed that this lie be told? Was it Karl Rove? Or was it the President of the United States?

Well??? Who was it? Either the president's going down, or it's Karl Rove.

Lets never repeat such mistakes. This was a time when Rwanda and Srebrenica were just allowed to happen almost simultaneously by the global community. We must remember.

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren’t encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of “endless” war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, “I don’t think it’s even started yet.”

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London’s bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

Now, this is true...

Now, he said, “we’re at the point where jihad is self-sustaining,” where Islamic “holy warriors” in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida’s bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Thursday’s attacks on London’s transit system mirrored last year’s bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration — but little more — to local “jihadists” who carry out the strikes.

...and here's the evidence from the communique following the London attacks:

Community of Islam: rejoice at the good news! Community of Arabism: rejoice at the good news! The time of revenge has come for the crusader, Zionist British government.

Billmon connects the dots as usual.

The original Arabic word for "Community of Arabism" is 'urubah – a term which has extremely negative connotations in the "Salafist" ideology that underpins Al Qaeda's world view. (I put the term in quotes because the concept of salafiyya, or respect for the "pious ancestors" of Islam, has other, far more benign, interpretations than those of the jihadis.)

Arabism is usually associated with the secular nationalism of Nasser, the PLO and – in extreme fascistic form – the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. While some Islamic thinkers, such as the late Palestinian scholar Isma’il al-Faruqi, have tried to reconcile Arabism and Islamism, militant Salafists have regarded the two as mutually hostile, at least up until now.

Suffice to say, the Cheney administration helped make the split between the two disappear. Meaning, they helped make the world less safe. And you could almost make the point that they did this deliberately, as to justify racism and violence against all Arabs and Muslims no matter what their aims were. It's the very sick irony and utter folly about falsely linking Saddam with Al Qaeda as far as I see it. In destroying Iraq and making it into a recruiting ground for terrorists, it has become exactly what proponents of the war should have hoped to avoid creating: Summer camp for terrorists heading to the global insurgency. Of course, there should have been some forethought about what reaction such a foolish and illegal war would unleash upon the world. Like Scheuer, I believe the richer nations of the world will most certainly need to address the underlying causes of terrorism through alterations of their foreign policies if there is to be any hope in all of this death and darkness the future holds.

So, to the Cheney administration and all other people out there who still having delusions of grandeur: Please stop blowing sunshine out your asses and start paying attention to what is actually occuring.

Bob Herbert is not amused either.

Thank you, Dr. Fink, for that very kind introduction.

It is a great honor to be back at the Commonwealth Club.

When I decided to give a speech about Iraq, I knew I wanted to give it here. That’s because of the pivotal role the Commonwealth Club has played for more than 100 years, fostering real dialogue on the critical challenges that define the times in which we live.

Today, those challenges are vast, from the Supreme Court vacancy to the attack on Social Security. But the war in Iraq is the most daunting because the status quo—of Americans dying, of Iraqis dying, of young soldiers coming home by the thousands with injuries to mind and body—weighs so heavily on all Americans.

As a policy maker, I must push as hard as I can for a strategy that can succeed in Iraq and bring our brave men and women home. That will only happen if we immediately bring credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a war that has been lacking in all three.

Last week, President Bush had a chance to regain credibility when it comes to Iraq. In my opinion, he did not.

He mentioned 9/11 five times in 30 minutes, despite the fact that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and that tragic day.

Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. The war of necessity was the war against Osama bin Laden that we launched after 9/11…the war that every single Senator voted for…the war that was a clear response to the vicious attack of that day.

That’s why I was incredulous when Karl Rove said: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war”

Therapy? By rewriting history, President Bush’s chief advisor is either trying to divide our nation, or divert attention from what is happening in Iraq.

Let me read you directly from my speech on the Senate floor on September 12th.

“We are resolved to hold those who planned these attacks and who harbor these people absolutely 100 percent accountable. They must pay because this is the test of a civilized nation…We will not back down. I stand proudly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with our President. We will be resolved to do everything—and do it well and do it right—to bring justice…”

After 9/11, the Congress was determined to dedicate as many resources as necessary to find the people who planned the attack. We knew they were in Afghanistan. We knew the Taliban was complicit. And, very important, we knew that the entire world was standing with us.

Instead, the Administration took its eye off the ball and focused on Iraq.

On September 12, the same day that I spoke on the Senate floor, the top terrorism expert at the White House, Richard Clarke, sat down with the president and a few colleagues in the Situation Room. He describes this scene in his book. I quote:

“`Look,’ [the President] told us, `I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way.’

“I was once again taken back, incredulous, and it showed,’ Clarke wrote. ‘But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.’

`I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.’

`Absolutely, we will look…again.’ I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. `But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.’

`Look into Iraq, Saddam,’ the President said testily and left us.”

No link was found. And yet, according to Bob Woodward, two months later, the President took Rumsfeld aside and asked, “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that going after Saddam was raised at a meeting just 10 days after the first inauguration.

And then there’s the now-famous Downing Street memo. In July, 2002, months before Bush asked Congress for authority to wage war in Iraq, the head of British intelligence reported that, and I quote: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

So, what happened to the President’s aides who misled the public about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, those who falsely claimed that this war was about terrorism, and that it wouldn’t cost us much—in lives, troops, or dollars?

Condi Rice, who said “We do know that there have been shipments going…into…Iraq…of aluminum tubes that…are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs,” was promoted to be our Secretary of State.

Paul Wolfowitz, who said, “Like the people in France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator,” got the top job at the World Bank.

George Tenet, who called the WMD claims a “slam dunk” was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

And the President? He had to know al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. [SHOW CHART]. His own State Department issued a report right after 9/11. It lists 45 countries in which al Qaeda operated. Guess who was not on that list? Iraq.

Now, there were some who tried to speak the truth. But they didn’t last long in the Bush Administration.

Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill are both gone.

Army Vice Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki estimated that it could take “several hundred thousand” soldiers to successfully stabilize Iraq, Wolfowitz called that number “wildly off the mark.” Shinseki retired early.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey said that a U.S. intervention in Iraq could cost between $100 and $200 billion. He was disputed, and ultimately left. We’ve now surpassed $200 billion.

The rest of us were told we had no right to criticize the President in a time of war.

Twenty six months ago, President Bush told us our mission was accomplished. It wasn’t. And do you know why? The Administration knew how to win phase one—the military invasion—but had absolutely no plan to win phase two—the peace. As former NSC Advisor Brzezinski said, “This war has been conducted with “tactical and strategic incompetence.”

So, where we are now? We have already lost 1,746 Americans in Iraq, 13,190 have been wounded. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, up to 17 percent of Iraq veterans suffer from major depression, generalized anxiety or post traumatic stress disorder. Divorces for active duty and enlisted personnel has nearly doubled and 8,000 Iraqis have been killed.

Here is the unvarnished truth. The Bush Administration’s failures thus far have left us with no good choices. If you went to the doctor with a diseased kidney and he took out the wrong one, you would feel distressed, angry, and frustrated about your options.

And that’s how many Americans feel now—distressed, angry and frustrated at the difficult situation facing our country and troops. All Americans love, support, and pray for our soldiers. The point is that our troops deserve far more than the status quo.

So, we must, as I have said, start being credible, truthful, if we want to succeed.

But it is also long past time for accountability, and that is my second point.

Last month, I co-sponsored Senator Feingold’s resolution asking the President to submit to Congress the remaining mission in Iraq, the time frame needed to achieve that mission, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of our troops. Why?

Because after two and a half years at war, the American people finally need to hear what our mission is and a detailed plan to accomplish it. That will give our soldiers and citizens hope and confidence.

It is difficult to keep track of all the missions we’ve had so far in Iraq. There was the weapons of mass destruction mission. Then the regime change mission. Then the rebuilding mission. Then the democracy mission.

And finally, terrorism, which the president mentioned more than 30 times in his speech. “Our mission in Iraq is clear,” he said. “We will hunt down the terrorists.”

That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists. With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes.

Let’s be clear: “What we have done in Iraq,” terrorism expert Peter Bergen explained, “is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams…It’s hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.”

A report issued by the CIA’s think tank found that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists. But, the tragic irony is, terrorism was the result of the war, not a reason for waging it and so we are in greater danger.

I believe our mission in Iraq is this: Security for Iraqis provided by Iraqis. We need a Manhattan project to train the Iraqi soldiers and a successful plan to tighten the borders, which should include troops from around the world.

And what about our democratic goals? Yes, we must help the Iraqis create a government in which everyone has a stake, including the Sunnis. But, while we will likely continue to play an advisory role if asked, we cannot tie current troop levels to the goal of a well-functioning democracy, which, even under the best circumstances, takes generations to perfect. Ours certainly did.

And that brings me to this point. The Administration continually compares Iraq’s struggle for democracy to our country’s struggle for democracy. Fine. But we fought for it with our own people. That’s what countries do. Others helped us, sure. But the people power was American.

If there is to be a free Iraq, and I certainly hope there will be, then the Iraqis must want that freedom—and be willing to defend it—as much as we want it for them.

We need to hear from the Administration exactly how many Iraqi forces are needed; how to meet that goal; and by when. And the current pace will not cut it.

In March, I went to Iraq with six other Senators of both parties. You can read or hear about it. But nothing can prepare you for seeing the security challenges we face there.

Outside a meeting room I sat in, located in the safe green zone, two people had recently been killed. In the building where the Assembly gathers, the security was even more intense. Two guards with machine guns had to stand beside each of us everywhere we went.

We watched the dynamic U.S. Army Lieutenant General, David Petraeus, train the Iraqi security forces. He told us he has enormous confidence in the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own security soon.

Yet when we talked to the Prime Minister, Ibrahim Jafari, he was in no rush at all, emphasizing that you can’t build an army overnight.

So how many Iraqi troops do we have right now? The answers are all over the map. Recently, the Pentagon said they have 107 battalions, totaling 169,000 men.

But of those 107 battalions, military commanders consider that only about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers are capable of carrying out missions on their own. That’s especially troubling when you consider the size of the insurgency, which has been estimated at anything from 12,000 to 50,000 with many more supporters.

We must enlist all the countries willing to train Iraqi security forces outside of Iraq. France has offered. Egyptians have offered. The Jordanians have offered. Yet, Senator Biden says that none of these offers has been taken up. It’s time. It’s past time.

When the Administration said that our allies who opposed the war need not apply for reconstruction contracts, the message was clear and counterproductive. What a mistake. Leadership is now needed to turn this around, and make reconstruction truly the world’s responsibility.

Because inside Iraq, water, electricity, and fuel are in short supply. Sewage still runs through the streets. The situation in Baghdad is so bad that the Mayor has threatened to resign in protest.

Despite all those claims that Iraqi oil would pay for its reconstruction, we are still paying most of it. I believe more of the reconstruction money now going to Halliburton—who just over-billed our government by $1 billion—should go to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own country.

So, where is the Congress in all of this? In every other war, Congress has played an oversight role. We are the voice of the American people. And the American people, who are fighting in and paying for this war, deserve to know the truth about everything. The truth about how we are measuring up to our highest ideals, including what happened at Abu Ghraib, a scandal that sickened everyone who saw those photos and has placed our brave troops in more danger.

And they deserve to know the truth about whether we are meeting our clearly-stated goals in Iraq—and, if not, why?

The Administration should come to the Hill often to report on specific progress. And the president himself should meet with the Senate in private sessions. Quite frankly, there are Senators of both parties—including Inouye, Warner, Lautenberg, McCain, Kerry, and Hagel—who have seen far more battles than the President and his core national security team. It would be wise to listen to these Senators.

We have no idea—none—how long the Administration plans to be in Iraq. Is it two years, ten, twenty? Condi Rice now calls it“a generational commitment.” The President’s message of `as long as it takes’ is counterproductive.

Retired General Gregory Newbold, who was one of the central planners of phase one of the war, told us: “We have to understand that the fundamental reason for the insurgency, the thing that ties all the various groups together, is their view that we are an occupying power.”

It is time for the President to send a clear message that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely or maintain permanent bases there. That doesn’t mean we should set an exact date for withdrawal. But it does mean we need a general timeframe to complete the mission.

And that brings me to my third and final point—responsibility. Responsibility to our troops and to the next generation.

In his speech, the President told us how important it was to honor the courageous young men and women of the military on the 4th of July. And I couldn’t have agreed more.

But, to me, we need to do more than that. We must also honor our soldiers every day by giving them the equipment they need while they are deployed and the health care they deserve when they come home.

Many of us have heard the heartbreaking stories about the soldiers sent to Iraq without proper armor to protect their bodies or vehicles. One wrote: “My mother, an elementary school teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the states. Other soldiers weren’t so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets.”

Another wrote: “I was driving a high-back humvee with no armor…I lost three fingers on my left hand and took shrapnel in my legs and chest. Would an uparmor kit have kept my fingers from being blown off? No one will ever know for sure, but I think so.”

When roadside bombs are now the weapon of choice for insurgents, how can we fail to give our soldiers the jamming devices they need to protect themselves?

But, in April, I had to fight—too hard—for an amendment to provide $60 million for jamming devices. And, we had to fight—too hard—to get the Administration to finally admit that it was $1 billion short of funds to provide health care for soldiers returning from war.

It’s also no secret that we are facing a serious recruiting crisis, which the chief of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command called “the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army.”

More pressure on recruiters is making some so desperate they are encouraging recruits to lie about their education and fitness to serve. And new aggressive ways of gathering data on high school students is angering parents, and not respecting family values.

But those who are bearing the brunt of this recruiting crisis are our soldiers and their families. Many are forced to serve on multiple tours in Iraq, missing birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and the small moments that make up our life stories. National Guard and reserves are being kept away from both their families and their jobs.

And what about those who make the ultimate sacrifice? Shouldn’t we honor, not hide, them? We should see photos of their flag-draped coffins. We should see the President or his personally appointed representatives meeting the coffins when they arrive—every single one.

But we must do far more. We owe it to the fallen, to all those who serve bravely now, and those who will do so in the future, to get this war right. We cannot rewrite the history of the last three years, but we can write a new chapter in this war.

On December 11, Bob Woodward had just finished his second interview with President Bush. They stood by the glass doors looking out on the Rose Garden. And Woodward asked him, “Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?”

“And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if to say this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

Imagine if our forefathers fighting for independence had thought that way? Or those who fought in the Civil War? Or in the World Wars? Or those who risked their lives—like Martin Luther King Jr.—for civil rights? Or suffragists who almost died in a hunger strike for the right of women to vote.

When Americans dedicate, and even sacrifice, their lives for what is right, we do it because we have a sacred responsibility to those who come after us to leave behind a world that is better, not worse, than the one we found.

Because, 20, 50, even 100 years from now, another group will gather in this spot to discuss issues of war and peace. And, when they do, I hope they look back and say that the summer of 2005 is when Americans, brought credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a very tough situation.

I hope they say that we finally began to level with the American people. That we articulated a winnable mission and a detailed plan to fulfill it. And that we gave our troops the support they needed and deserved in Iraq and upon their return to our beloved shores.

We owe it to our soldiers, to the American people, to Iraqis, and, yes, to history, to do nothing less.

Another leaked memo from the UK shows possible pull-out plans of the US, UK, and possibly others. [Independent, Daily Mail (original source)]

Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control.

The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.

The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.

Revealingly, it hints at tension between the Pentagon and US Central Command, which want a rapid troop reduction, and commanders on the ground in Iraq.

The memo also warns that Japan may insist on pulling out the 550 Japanese engineers if they left with the only the Iraq army to protect them from insurgents. There will be a question mark, too, over the 1,400 Australian soldiers in Iraq.

The memo, entitled Options for future UK force posture in Iraq and headed "Secret - UK eyes only", was leaked to The Mail on Sunday, apparently by someone connected with the Defence department who suspected that Britain was preparing to get out quick as an economy measure, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

The defence department said it that various options were being considered for reducing the British presence in Iraq, and stressed that nothing has been finally decided.

The memo, sent to Tony Blair, said that the US government is also trying to scale down its military commitment to Iraq. "Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction from 176,000 (allied troops) down to 66,000.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around how it feels to now have family in danger in both Iraq and London. But lets be honest with one another...we knew full-well that Britain's involvement in Iraq increased the chances of an attack on London. So it's hardly a surprise. I'm just very thankful my sister and all my loved ones in London were not physically hurt. Anyway, it's been about as slippery a feeling as any I've had in recent years. I want the people who planned and staged the attacks in London behind bars as much as I want the people responsible for Abu Ghraib and the entire illegal Iraq war behind bars. Besides the now added complexities of having a sister who was extremely lucky, here are a few things that are clear to me. The Iraq war has made everybody less safe. And, still to many, it seems an Iraqi's life is not worth as much as a Brit's or American's life. With this leaked memo we have the first signs of a possible timeline for a draw-down of troops. The Brits could force the American hand by turning over the provinces currently under their control to Iraqis. I suggest the British government go through with this plan of a draw-down while insisting (even privately) for Bush Co. to issue a timetable of withdrawal. We need a light at the end of the tunnel. And we need it now.

Memo in Full

Options for future UK force posture in Iraq

Paper by Secretary of State SECRET - UK EYES ONLY

1. ISSUE

We will need to reach decisions later this year on likely future UK force structure and disposition in Iraq into 2006.

This paper sets out some of the key contextual considerations; identifies areas of uncertainty; sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution; and assesses the potential impact on UK decision making.

2. Decisions on coalition, and within that, UK force levels will be governed by four factors, all of which are subject to a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty:
* Internal Iraqi pressure for further force posture changes.
* Successful progress in the potential process and extension/renewal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. (Mail on Sunday footnote 1)
* The continued development of the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
* The security situation.

3. None of this, however, undermines the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) (Mail on Sunday footnote 2)broad security strategy of:
a) Working with the Iraqis to contain and restrain the insurgency.
b) Assisting and encouraging the development of Iraqi security forces and structures which can progressively assume responsibility for all aspects of security including dealing with the insurgency, and thereby:
c) Enable MNF-I force reductions and eventual withdrawal.

4. US POSITION

US political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall US commitment levels.

Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.

There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom (Mail on Sunday footnote 3) who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.

The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.

5. (Technical details)

6. UK POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East. (Mail on Sunday footnote 4)
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.

7. Looking further ahead, we have a clear UK military aspiration to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (Mail on Sunday footnote 5) in October 2005 and in the other two Multinational Division South East provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra (Mail on Sunday footnote 6) in April 2006.

This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale, by mid 2006.

This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs which fall to the reserve, (Mail on Sunday footnote 7) around £1 billion per annum currently. Though it is not clear exactly when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006.

8. None of this however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan. There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way. We will need to consider handling of other MND SE allies.

The Japanese reconstruction battalion (Mail on Sunday footnote 8)will for example be reluctant to stay in Al Muthanna if force protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position, which is highly influenced by the Japanese presence, may also be uncertain. (Mail on Sunday footnote 9)

NOTE

I will bring further and more specific proposals to DOP-I (Mail on Sunday footnote 10) for the future UK force posture in Iraq, including handover to Iraqi control and subsequent UK military drawdown.

John Reid.

Mail on Sunday footnotes

Footnote 1:(UN resolution authorising allied troops presence in Iraq)
Footnote 2: (The Multinational Force of Allied troops in Iraq)
Footnote 3: (Centcom is the US military command centre in the US)
Footnote 4: (Not get involved in operations outside area around Basra under UK control)
Footnote 5: (two of the four provinces around Basra in UK control)
Footnote 6: (the other two UK run provinces)
Footnote 7: (The UK Treasury Reserve)
Footnote 8: (Japan has 550 engineers in UK area of Iraq)
Footnote 9: (Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq ,whose main job is to protect the Japanese)
Footnote 10: (The Defence and Overseas Policy, Iraq sub committee of the Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister)

Fisk on the money again.

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterday's bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no longer valid.

To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.

A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent- are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use - as our television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.

And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts"who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.

Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target - be sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.

And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she's been racially abused.

I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.

And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.

But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kutal-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.

Booop Booop Booop... Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehp... (the beeb countdown)

You expect me to slump into depression, to lash out in some fit of rage, to crush you with the density of mercurial verbosity...yet no, I am held back by the poetry of piping hot Asian BBC World reporters. Forget Nancy Ajram and Haifa Wehbe. I'm talking class and intelligence...I'm talking almost 75% as fine as female Al Jazeera reporters.

Due to the marvels of satellite technology I have been indulging in BBC World trying to keep up to speed on all developments of the insanity by which my Londoner sister has confronted along with many many others. Once some more details emerge, I will respond more seriously. In the meantime, I want to speak of the hot asian BBC reporters that have calmed my nerves while the pressure has risen. Only if you watch BBC World would you actually understand what I'm speaking of here.

Michelle Hussein: Perhaps the kindest on the eyes. Yes, she has the same name as the tyrant...but she's oh so fine. My lord! What could I possibly say about Michelle Hussein? You can't find photographs of Michelle H. on the net because she's too hot for photographs. Get a satellite and get BBC World.

Zeinab Badawi: She's Sudanese. And while not technically Asian, I say close enough. Need I say more? [relevant mp3]









And just so you don't think I'm racist, do you remember the Annie Lennox/Sinead O'Connor of BBC McBabes? Anita McNaught-y! Rawwwrrrr beby rawwwr!








So here's to London and all their hot BBC reporters doing overtime by looking sexy on satellite. Am I out of line? Good.

more later...

My sister was very lucky today. She was in the tube and only a block or two away from one of the blasts when it happened. THANK GOD, SHE IS FINE, but I am very angry. More happened, but I am going to go smoke a ciggarette or something. I don't believe how close it was. You wouldn't believe me if I told you the whole thing, but it's one of those if she wasn't lazy she could have been right in the middle of it stories.

I chatted with her just now and we came to the conclusion that bush and blair are frickin' bastards and have made the world less safe because of their idiocy. ...that almost goes without saying, along with the fact that whatever bastards did this deserve to meet a painful death.

AND ANOTHER THING: When it happens in IRAQ, it's NO DIFFERENT! Grrrrrr...

My words'll expose George Bush and Bin Laden
As two separate parts of the same seven headed dragon

Remember this song? Download it here and the other, The Cause of Death, here.

UPDATE:

I'm going to collate some links here soon.

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

Stem Cell Research

Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

Use of Force

Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort

Bush's War in Iraq

Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster

Press

Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press

Free Speech

Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

Individuals

Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity

Cooperation

Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together

Tolerance

Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live

Conscience

Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection

Origins

Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government

Fear

Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be

Marriage

Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other

via dKos

In what could be a matter of real confrontation, China & Russia have asked America to set a timetable to withdraw from Central Asia. Brzenzski's Grand Chessboard is now charged with electricity.

CS reports,

A six-nation security bloc comprised of China, Russia, and four former Soviet states has urged the US-led coalition in Afghanistan to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from member states, reports BBC. Meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Russia - issued a joint statement saying the active military phase of the Afghan operation was coming to an end and calling on the US-led coalition to agree to a deadline for ending the temporary use of bases and air space in member countries.

We shall see what comes of this in the following days and weeks. Make no mistake, this is heavy-hitting geopolitics.

Billmon makes an important point about the information wars and how extremists help one another make a bad situation worse.

It looks like the Cheney administration is finally getting serious about losing the war in Iraq -- it's sending in the radio talk show hosts:

A contingent of conservatives talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary.

The "Truth Tour" has been pulled together by the conservative Web cast radio group Rightalk.com and Move America Forward, a non-profit conservative group backed by a Republican-linked public relations firm in California.

If the Iraqi insurgents are smart -- and most of them are fucking geniuses compared to your average right-wing talk show host -- they'll spread the word: Leave these particular dumb ass infidels alone. (Not that any of them are likely to poke their porcine snouts outside the green zone without a brigade-strength escort. But you never know where the odd mortar round is going to land.)

Why? Because collectively, these guys are an enormously valuable asset to America's enemies -- both because of their utterly brainless support for Al Qaeda's strategy of turning the war against terrorism into a crusade against Islam, and because they've done such a splendid job of setting up the American people to be demoralized and disillusioned by the truth.

Obfuscating the truth for more delusional visions of victory won't be helpful. And I'm sure extremists in the region will welcome the wing nuts to town with open arms. Another sick twist...

I was just speaking with my cousin who recently fled Iraq because of the terrible instability and he makes two points about why it was dangerous for him specifically. 1) Because he worked for a foreign company. "It put a stamp on our forehead." 2) Because he's Christian. "We're targeted by the fanatics." Then he went on to describe the violence committed by Iraqis in more detail, saying that 90 percent of the violence is perpitrated by ruthless gangs and other unsavory asswipes, while the other 10% honestly fight the occupation. That was his abstract estimate. He says Iraq is by and large lawless because of how these gangs operate. And now Iraq is flooded with them. I'm sure I'll have more from him in the future, but I just wanted to put a first impression of his thoughts up here now.

All I can say is that it seems from my cousin's estimate that the criminals are operating at an endemic level. He later on went to say, "maybe we can all go back and live in Iraq in 10 or 20 years." Other comments I recall include, "There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Because the tunnel is so long and dark." and "We would like to see hope, but there is none." and "Each day is worse than the day before."

When you hear this, it gets very depressing. In the end he said, "We still have hope. We lived like this during the war and we live like this now. We always have hope."

Sure he contradicts what he says about there being no hope, but I think that shows a lot about the general Iraqi feeling these days. Teetering between hope and hopelessness. It's certainly how I've felt, though now I have less hope than ever before...exactly because each day the situation gets worse.

About the 90/10 split...of course it's hard to say what this estimate really is, but there must be truth to this feeling he has. Still, what can be done about it when it benefits them to keep things as unstable as possible? Why would these bastards mind if some foreign jihadi went and blew up a bunch of innocent Iraqis or if American troops made more grave errors by putting more innocent Iraqis in graves. It only helps these criminal thugs. Of course, these are the Iraqis involved that we spoke of...my cousin also was saying that each and every day the amount of foreign "single-wash brainwashed fanatics" (as he calls them) and other fighters coming into Iraq is more and more. This was his feeling at least. And, it sure does look like that from afar. If this was America's strategy for fighting the so-called war on terror...to make Iraq into a training center similar as how Afghanistan was when America was sponsoring Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, well doesn't that sound the alarm bell that such a place only makes the world less safe?

Just because the new sponsors are rich Saudis, doesn't make the situation any different today. In fact, I'd argue it is worse because we know less and less about how these sort of terror groups operate now. Of course, in the case of Afghanistan in the 80s, America created those groups to fight the Soviet Union. So now, essentially, America has helped created another incubator for terrorism...and that was a part of the strategy?

They couldn't tie Iraq and Al Qaeda together then, but they sure can now. Imagine, then...that was a goal of the Cheney administration. How sick and twisted can a foreign policy get?

I want to be completely clear about my position regarding American troops in Iraq. There absolutely needs to be a timetable for withdrawal. The notion the insurgents need some sort of reason to "wait it out" is absurd. Let's be serious, the insurgency doesn't need a reason to be encouraged to fight. They are only getting stronger and more sophisticated as time passes, while American forces continue to kill and alienate innocent Iraqis. These Iraqis are the lot made to suffer most. They are stuck between the insurgency and the occupation. This favors the insurgency in the long run of course. And I believe more and more honest Iraqis are dreaming to be rid of the occupation. And that spells a nightmare for the American wish to have a strategic foothold in the region. In short, it will be impossible for America to have bases in Iraq and for Iraqis to live in peace simultaneously. bases/occupation = chaos - Simple as that. Anyway, at this rate, I believe in one to two years such a timetable will be presented. Now it doesn't seem to be in the cards for whatever reason, but believe me it will.

Is this a solution? Of course not. I'm describing not prescribing. If somebody tells you they have a solution, they'd be lying through their teeth. Let's just say we know what is not a solution. It is not a solution to continue the occupation indefinitely. It is not a solution to not hold people accountable and operate above international law. It is not a solution for people to treat Iraqis like they don't matter in all this. Iraq is for Iraqis, not for America. I'm sick of how people don't ask Iraqis living inside Iraq how they feel about being occupied, how they feel about being humiliated daily, how they feel about being treated like strangers in their own land, how they feel about not being able to go for a walk down the street, how they feel about not having drinking water, how they feel about not having petrol for their cars while having the world's second largest reserves of the stuff, how they feel about being the real victim in all this chaos.

Who gives anybody the right to not include Iraqis in the reconstruction process...to be suspicious of them getting involved in such projects just by the virtue that they are Iraqis? I mean, isn't that completely insane? Exiles going back to help is wonderful, but when they are the only ones running the ship from an isolated cocoon, the ship is bound to go down.

Exiles should be serving a support role, not as the Emperor's servants. When the Iraqi that has lived through all the wars and sanctions is put under the thumb of exiles coming from their plush lives (and able to leave whenever they like, mind you) from Australia, Europe, and N. America...it just sets up the entire situation for animosity to incubate.

Sure, Iraqis need to learn about certain things...and exiles will offer that help. But by no means should they patronize the Iraqi who has lived and suffered through the past hell to be presented with a new and even worse hell that they don't even have ownership of now. Talk about adding insult to injury. If the "injury" was a gaping flesh wound...it's more like adding urine, spit, and a little doo doo to that injury...rubbing it all in, then adding a little salt and terpintine to the wound. And then saying, "you don't live here, it's my house now, get out and pay for the doo doo too."

Whether or not that makes sense, I could hardly care less. I'm so exhausted as today felt over 40 degrees until the sun went down. My body aches and I'd like to shower, but I can't because my towels are washing.

That's all for now. Blaaa.

You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways. -Tom Delay

Billmon has written an excellent post entitled Democracy or Empire?

Rove needs to be visited by the FBI Ferry and locked up.

Screw democrats and let them give birth to gremlins for being so weak in the knees on a woman's right to choose.

The current Iraqi "government" learned a lot from Saddam and then they upgraded their torture chambers to "torture camps" thanks to America's help at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.

Remember to get your war on every once and a while.

And Tom Tomorrow cuts through the crap as usual. Check this one:

When you thought the Cheney administration couldn't get more hostile:

The Bush administration has decided to retain control over the principal computers which control internet traffic in a move likely to prompt global opposition, it was claimed yesterday.

The US had pledged to turn control of the 13 computers known as root servers - which inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic - over to a private, international body.

But on Thursday the US reversed its position, announcing that it will maintain control of the computers because of growing security threats and the increased reliance on the internet for global communications. A Japanese government official yesterday criticised the move, claiming it will lend momentum to the debate about who controls the information flow online.

Can anybody say, unilateral take-over of the internet? I mean, they didn't even go to the UN for this one.