Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki calls for a "decisive" drive against militants in a speech Friday in Karbala.
Extra police and soldiers are being deployed to the northern city to strip al Qaeda in Iraq of its sanctuaries and "incubators" there, Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf said.
Read More^
Don't Miss
Iraq to host Iran leader for first time since war in '80s
Questions for al Qaeda posted online
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Jan 25, 2008
Iraq sends troops for 'decisive' battle with al Qaeda
Jan 24, 2008
Iraq Wants US Out
BAGHDAD - The United States and Iraq will soon begin negotiating a power shift for U.S. forces, nearly five years after they invaded Iraq and installed a new government, Iraqi and U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.
Iraq wants us to essentially be comfined to bases with limited freedom of movement.
Iraq appears to be concerned with the continued violent confrontations eith Al-Qaida and other radical Muslim militias on the part of the US.
Who can blame them? We have been over there five years devastating their country.
Source
Dec 28, 2007
Bush rejects another Iraq war spending law
CRAWFORD, Texas (AFP) -
President George W. Bush clashed again with Congress over the Iraq war Friday, rejecting a US military spending bill on the grounds it would throw up legal obstacles to reconstruction money.
"The aggregate financial impact of these provisions on Iraq would be devastating," Bush said in a memo released by the White House, outlining his reasons for rejecting the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The bill "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts and ... would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of the United States," he said.
Bush said he was withholding approval of the bill -- effectively vetoing it, since the law cannot pass if he does not sign it within 10 days of it being presented to him.
Read More ^
Oct 18, 2007
Iraq's Brutally Wounded (Photo Essay)
As Americans scramble for funding to try to help the many wounded veterans returning from war, many more thousands in Iraq have suffered equally horrific injuries, yet have virtually no way of receiving care.
AlterNet and multimedia co-sponsor BAGnewsNotes are pleased to host the above slideshow of images from "Iraq, brutally wounded," followed by an interview with the photographer, Farah Nosh, conducted by Nina Berman.
Read More:Iraq's Brutally Wounded (Photo Essay)
Sep 6, 2007
Can Democrats End the Iraq War?
Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war. Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of such a strategy, but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.
It is a matter of constitutional fact, which is that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose. They choose not to."
The questions are not just: Can Congress stop the surge? Can Congress stop a war-mongering president in his tracks? The better question is what are the things Congress can accomplish just by trying to stop the escalation, boldly, and without apology?
The answer to that is: an enormous amount -- and that the only thing that can guarantee Democratic political weakness in 2008 is if they abandon a strong withdrawal (or, if you prefer, "redeployment") position.
According to The constitution the Congress shall have power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Why are they not using this power to end the War?
Sep 5, 2007
Bush tells minister 'we're kicking ass' in Iraq
Apparently on his recent visit to Australia he told Deputy Australian Prime Minister Mark Vaile that we are "kicking ass" in Iraq. WTF - is this man completely out of touch with reality?
His defiance on Iraq is growing. He implied that those who argued against the war in the first place had no role in the current debate.
Perhaps encouraged by the expectation that he will soon be able to withdraw some troops and claim success, regardless of what the rest of the world believes, Bush appeared as a man who has convinced himself he is on the right track and will crash or crash through. It was equally apparent he would rather have Howard, the only other leader from the original coalition of the willing still standing, with him for the remainder of the journey.
Read More...By George: now it's all the way with Howard J
Aug 31, 2007
Whitewashing the War in Iraq
CANBERRA (Reuters) - The U.S. troop surge in Iraq has thrown al Qaeda off balance and led to a reduction in sectarian violence and bombings, the U.S. commander in Iraq was quoted on Friday by an Australian newspaper as saying.
"We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress and we believe al Qaeda is off balance at the very least," General David Petraeus told the Australian in an interview after briefing Australia's defense minister, Brendan Nelson, in Baghdad.
Read More...Petraeus says Iraq "surge" working: paper
"After years of slogans and soundbites Americans deserve an even-handed assessment of conditions in Iraq," Rep. Emanuel (D-IL) said. "Sadly, we will only receive a snapshot from the same people who told us the mission was accomplished and the insurgency was in its last throes. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives in Iraq. An honest report from our generals and diplomats about the status of the war isn't too much to ask."
Read More...September progress report being written by White House
Two sides of the same coin. We can hardly expect to get a true and honest assessment when President Bush has long said the report will represent the views of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US troops in Iraq, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, it is actually being prepared by the White House with input from officials throughout the government, according to the Times. Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.
Aug 22, 2007
Iraq Chopper Crash Kills 14 Soldiers
A helicopter went down in northern Iraq on Wednesday, killing all 14...
Sphere: Related Content
Aug 10, 2007
Spinning the War in Iraq
Some of George W. Bush's supporters are hailing the fact that in July, only 80 American troops were killed in Iraq, down from triple-digit numbers the preceding three months. They see it as a sign that Bush's "surge" is working.
But military and intelligence sources say other factors explain the downturn, including a decision by U.S. commanders to cut back on aggressive ground operations to reduce the political backlash over rising casualties, not to mention the brutal heat.
For the full story of the politics behind spinning the Iraq War death toll, go to http://www.consortiumnews.com.
Jul 25, 2007
Bush chose this war and will choose another
Bush is a liar and I believe that one reason we attacked Iraq was to further the goals of a handful of greedy, deceitful people.
The whole thing began with this lie:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. — Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
Then this lie:
Bush administration officials exaggerated the threats from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and failed to uncover any links between President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, a private nonpartisan research organization concluded in a report released yesterday [2004-01-08].
George Dubya Bush has now done what no other American president has ever done before: invaded another nation without any direct provocation.
I believe that the main reasons for the US invasion of Iraq were to gain control of Iraq's oilfields, to establish military bases in Iraq from which to dominate the Middle East and eventually (by controlling oil supply) to establish control over all countries dependent on oil, and to remove the threat to Israel posed by Iraq.
I also believe that Saddam Hussein was targeted because of an old grudge held by the Bush family and because he knew too much. He paid for this with his life.
He was a man guilty of crimes against humanity and so he should be held accountable for that, but, for many years Saddam was our ally.
Under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush (Senior), we built Saddam up and supported him because he was fighting against our enemies in Iran.
We are the ones who supplied the military resources for his vaunted "Republican Guard" which was so highly feared until they proved to be so impotent in the Gulf War of 1991.
Saddam Hussein, Iraq or the Baath party had NEVER made any direct threat to U.S. interests. Saddam was no Al Qaeda/Taliban religious extremist. He was no suicide bomber. He enjoyed a nice quality of life and wanted to maintain (or expand) his power as long as he could. He knew that this time, testosterone-intoxicated Dubya wouldn't stop until he was gone (no matter how many American or Iraqi lives would have to be expended), trying to prove that Daddy wasn't really a wimp after all, as well as distracting us from his other domestic policy failures and the failure to apprehend Osama-been-forgotten.
As far as Bin Laden goes, he denies any involvement in the September 11th attacks.
I don't know if this is true or not because there is so much propaganda and bullshit around this issue that I can't begin to wade through it. However, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. They were Sunni Muslims from the Wahabi sect.
The CIA has confirmed that they have no connection with Saddam Hussein whatsoever; in fact, Osama been forgotten, their leader, has denounced Saddam Hussein and tried to have him assassinated because, as a Moslem, he is too secular and thus an "infidel."
The Bush administration has cleverly and deceptively parlayed a rightful response to the invasions of 9/11, when we were invaded, into a justification for invading another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has never posed a threat to the United States.
If anything this war has strengthened Al Qaeda in fact, the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.
Futhermore, I believe that we will attack Iran before Bush leaves Office because immediate risks and costs of preemptive military action against Iran are, in the final analysis, less formidable than the risks and costs of tolerating Iranian nuclear possession --- and the personal and national humiliation that would result from passive acceptance of that outcome.
Jul 16, 2007
Solution to the War on Ebay?
Vet's Iraq 'Solution' Triggers eBay Frenzy
Soldier's Five-Page Answer to Ending Iraq War Maxes Out Bidding Process
By DAVID SCHOETZ
The listing, posted over the weekend and open to bidding through July 22, has already generated 126 online bids. On Monday, Krasnesky's blueprint had been seen by more than 10,000 window shoppers and had spawned at least one copycat listing. As of now the bidding process has maxed out at $99,999,999.
"This war has currently cost us somewhere around FOUR HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS and over 3,500 American lives," Krasnesky wrote. "My buy-it-now price of 5 million seems perfectly reasonable by comparison. I'm not even asking you to risk your life."
Jul 13, 2007
House Votes to Pull Troops
The president acknowledged that public opinion might be against him — he said that “sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don’t enable you to be loved” — but suggested that Congress was overstepping its constitutional role by trying to force a change of policy on him.
WTF!! Now Bush is talking as if he actually 'knows' what the Constitution is and what it says! This 'un-president' has made a mockery for so long that it is in shreds!
Sphere: Related Content
Jul 11, 2007
Pentagon Says Full Iraq Assessment Will Come in September
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
10 July 2007
Pessin report (mp3) - Download 493k Listen to Pessin report (mp3)
The U.S. Defense Department says it would be premature to judge the new Iraq strategy now, as some members of Congress have done, and a spokesman is appealing for more time for the military operation implementing that strategy to work. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
Spokesman Bryan Whitman says the interim report President Bush must make to the Congress this week was not designed to be a full assessment of the new strategy the president outlined in January. Whitman says that assessment will come by September 15, the date Congress set for a report by the top U.S. commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.
"September is not a political strategy," he said. "September is the course that we charted out, the plan, the deal, the manner in which we devised a way forward."
The document due this week is to report mainly on the performance of the Iraqi government in meeting political benchmarks toward reconciliation. There has been little progress toward reaching those benchmarks, and Whitman and other U.S. government spokesman have said no one expected the Iraqis to fully meet the benchmarks by now.
Whitman says the report due this week has taken on what he called "some prominence that wasn't anticipated."
US troops during a mission in Baquba, 04 Jul 2007 But Whitman stressed that all the extra troops President Bush ordered to Iraq in January have only been in place and pursuing their new offensive for a little more than three weeks.
"One should be very careful about making any sort of premature conclusions or judgments about where we are at at this point in time," he said.
Field commanders have reported good progress from the offensive, called Operation Phantom Thunder. But they say their successes are only first steps and there is much work to be done. Whitman says the defense department is focused on implementing the president's new strategy, and its best assessment of the effort will come later.
"It should be of no surprise to anybody that we believe that the first opportunity to really make an initial assessment as to how well the surge is working is September," he said.
Whitman says Defense Secretary Robert Gates is personally reviewing the Pentagon's part of this week's report, and will be meeting with members of Congress to discuss it.
Jun 19, 2007
When will it end?
Military Strikes Insurgents’ Positions East of Baghdad
This is not a "War on Terror." It is a crime agains humanity in my view of it!
The United States does not have the right, wisdom or power to invade and occupy another country, still less an ancient civilization, with the ultimate purpose of redirecting that nation and its civilization. Such a mission will never result in any kind of victory, only the morally toxic political and humanitarian catastrophes we are witnessing and, if allowed to continue, crimes not soon forgotten or forgiven. (Stephen F. Cohen)
Now we have 10,000 Troops going on the offensive and nothing will change because of that except more people will die and be wounded. The "Terrorists" will simply move their camps to another location.
This is a War that will never end as long as we continue to stay where we are not wanted.
It is said America must "stay the course" because it has a "moral obligation" to the Iraqi people. But given the horrors unleashed on those people since the US invasion, the only moral course is withdrawal, along with a pledge to help fund the country's reconstruction--a promise still unfulfilled despite $30 billion to $45 billion purportedly spent--if Iraq at last has an effective and peaceful government.
It is true that an upsurge of violence may occur when the United States departs, but that will be so whether the departure is sooner or later, the essential difference being that many more people--Americans and Iraqis--will die in the interim.
In reality, widespread killing in Iraq will never end until the US-led occupation ends and one side or the other in the civil war, deprived of foreign occupiers to provide resources or incite more enemies, finally prevails or both settle for a compromise. The Iraqi people seem to agree. In surveys taken last year, large majorities favored an immediate US withdrawal; and nearly 80 percent believed it would reduce the violence in their country. (Stephen F. Cohen)
May 14, 2007
Apparently It's An Eye For An Eye
BAGHDAD -
An al-Qaida front group that claims it has captured American soldiers warned the United States on Monday to stop searching for them and suggested it attacked the U.S. convoy as revenge for the rape and murder of a local teenager last year.
“You should remember what you have done to our sister Abeer in the same area,” the statement said, referring to five American soldiers who were charged in the rape and killing of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and the killings of her parents and her younger sister last year.
Three soldiers have pleaded guilty in the case — one of the most shocking atrocities committed by U.S. troops in the Iraq war.
Apparently it is an eye for an eye in this case, however tragic this may be.
“What you are doing in searching for your soldiers will lead to nothing but exhaustion and headaches. Your soldiers are in our hands. If you want their safety, do not look for them,” the Islamic State of Iraq said on a militant Web site.
Instead of listening, watching and waiting, we have some 4,000 Troops searching for these three missing soldiers which all but guarantees they will be killed.
Read the Full Story
May 3, 2007
Turn back the hands of time to before the Iraq war
Mar 13, 2007
Who Are The Real Myth Makers?
By Robert Parry
March 13, 2007
Bush/Cheney & a Love of 'Petards' Neoconservatives love one rhetorical device above all others, flipping an opponent's words back in his face, a process called "hoisting him on his own petard." Recently, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have engaged in this practice themselves in countering Iraq War opponents. Bush mocked his "realist" critics for lacking "realism." Cheney, who has spread every Iraq War myth known to man, is now accusing critics of embracing "myths" about the Iraq War. Clever words, however, cannot fix a disastrous military policy.
In My View of It, Bush and Cheney are the real "myth makers. This "War on "Terror" has never been addressed, instead it became a war on Sadam Hussein. Simply a need to settle the score for Bush Sr. and to gain control of Oil Rights in Iraq, What ever happened to this "War on Terror?" Instead of focusing on finding and holding those accountable for 911, we have left the Talliban alone long enough for them to regroup and gain strength in Afghanistan. Tell me, what has been accomplished? Al Quaeda is an even bigger threat then before the war. We are no better off now then before we started this whole nightmare. Plus, al-Qaeda has been rebuilding its command-and-control structure.“American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan,” the New York Times reported on Feb. 19. Again, who are the real Myth Makers?
Feb 13, 2007
House Begins Debate on Iraq War
Feb 13, 10:53 AM (ET)
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Almost four years into the Iraq war, the House on Tuesday began a historic debate on whether President Bush's decision to add more U.S. troops to the bloody conflict is a mistake that has to be reversed.
Democrats, with some Republican support, won control of Congress in last November's elections and were determined to pass a resolution disapproving of the president's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional combat troops
"This is the debate that many of us have yearned for for four years," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
The measure, expected to be approved by the House on Friday, was nonbinding. But the message was unmistakable, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who maintained that Bush's policies "have not worked, will not work and must be changed."
(AP) A soldier from C. Co., 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment of the 2nd Infantry Division forces...Full ImageGenerally speaking, Republicans who are in the minority for the first time in 12 years stood ready to rally behind their president. Democrats, said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., are saying to forces in Iraq: "Americans are dying, the situation is dire, but we are not going to send more reinforcements. You are on your own."
Democrats expressed confidence the measure would prevail and said they would attempt to use it as the opening move in a campaign to pressure Bush to change course and end U.S. military involvement in the war. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died in nearly four years of fighting.
As the House moved toward debate this week, Senate Republicans opposed to Bush's Iraq plan sought to revive a vote on a similar resolution. Even before the formal debate began Tuesday, lawmakers from the two sides took to the floor to express their views.
"As a new member of the House, I feel it is my responsibility to ask serious questions of the president who refuses to take this institution seriously," said freshman Democrat John Hall of New York.
"Some people from the other side seem to believe that if we pull out of Iraq, that the Iraqi people are going to go back to tending sheep and herding goats. That's not what's going to happen," countered Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga. "If we pull out of Iraq, what's going to happen is you are going to see more bloodshed than we have seen in a long time in this world."
(AP) In a file photo Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday,...Full ImageRepublicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen members of the GOP were likely to break ranks and vote for it.
In a reversal, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership decided Monday night not to give Republicans a chance to propose an alternative measure - a move that drew protests from Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the GOP leader.
"At the end of the debate, we will vote on a straightforward proposition: Whether we support the president's plan or oppose it," Pelosi said in her prepared remarks. "That vote will signal whether the House has heard the message the American people have sent about this war. The current policies have not worked, will not work and must be changed."
It was the first debate about the war in either house of Congress since November's midterm elections, when public opposition to the conflict helped power Democrats to control of the House and Senate.
Bush's decision last month to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to help stop sectarian violence has quickly become a flashpoint for critics of the war in Congress. There are currently about 141,000 American troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.
(AP) In a file photo Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday,...Full ImageThe nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.
While such legislation can neither force Bush's hand nor bring the war to a close, the vote could be a politically embarrassing rejection of his Iraq policy and help Democrats reassert congressional oversight of the war.
Each of the House's 435 members and five delegates were being allotted five minutes to speak on the issue. Democratic leaders said Monday they planned to restrict members to a single vote by week's end, barring any amendments or a GOP alternative - a tack Republican leaders decried as unfair.
"After promising to make this Congress the most open and honest in history, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi has effectively shut out both Republicans and Democrats from substantively debating the most important issue of our time," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.
Pelosi and other Democrats said restricting debate to one measure will force members to go on record on the war without hiding behind political ploys.
This week's debate will be in sharp contrast to the one in 2002, which authorized Bush to use force if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. That debate resulted in solid margins of support from Republicans and Democrats.
In October 2002, just over half of the public - 52 percent - approved of Bush's handling of Iraq in Gallup polling. But Bush now faces a new political landscape. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died and the justification for the invasion has been discredited with a majority of the public.
Hence the recent propaganda blitz-I rest my case (for the moment!)
Feb 11, 2007
Iraqi Insurgents Offer Peace for U.S. Concessions
By Robert Fisk,
The Independent UK.
Posted February 10, 2007.
For the first time, Sunni insurgents disclose their conditions for ceasefire in Iraq. The ball is now in Bush's court.
For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.
The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet -- but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.
Al-Jeelani suggests the United Nations, the Arab League or the Islamic Conference might lead such negotiations and would have to guarantee the security of the participants.
Then come the conditions:
The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill.”
Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people.”
An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.
The negotiations to take place in public.
The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades."
The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.
The above demands are of course impossible, but could this be a starting point to negotiate the end of this war? I would hope that Bush would see it as so and perhaps respond in a like spirit. I don't see any mention of Al-Queda here or any indication as to whether this is a unanimous agreement across the board with the Sunni's...Still awaiting Bush's response, but he will probably dismiss it out of hand..In My View of It.
Feb 5, 2007
SO BUSH TAKES RESPONSIBILITY
Monday, February 05, 2007
In his most recent effort to make some sense of America's involvement in the messy war in Iraq, President George W. Bush asserted that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." So, what about it?
Ordinarily when someone makes a mistake and accepts responsibility for it, what follows is a sincere effort to make amends, to rectify what was done badly, to repair the damage, to compensate those who were harmed by the mistakes made, etc.
Is there anything along these lines involved in President Bush's claim that "the responsibility rests with me?" Or do these words have no concrete implications when used by our president? Is he going to resign? Is he going to pay damages to the families whose relatives perished in this insane war?
Maybe what the president's version of accepting responsibility teaches us is that political rhetoric is thoroughly corrupt. Politicians like Mr. Bush do not mean what they say, but rather use words and sentences to pretend to us that they, like the rest of us, are aware of the requirements of morality. But it is just a ruse-it is all pretense, nothing real.
I don't think I can add to this, just more of Bush's yada yada lip service!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
