Obama Talks War on Meet the Press

Meet the Press highlights from President-elect Obama's appearance on Sunday ranged from "Obama won't smoke in the White House" to "Obama warns economy will get even worse" to my favorite, Obama says there will be science lectures in the White House. That would be fantastic and a real change from the science-phobic President Bush. In fact, some of my personal hopes for Obama involve his approach to climate change and science. I don't have a lot of hope that he will be unbiased about Palestine or Afghanistan because his own words show his agenda supports fighting a so-called "War on Terror" as defined by the "West" -- which somehow includes Israel. Unfortunately, the "War on Terror" is a mythological beast. It's like a war on bad dreams.

The most disturbing statements that Obama made during the Meet the Press Interview (transcript here) are about continuing the war in the "region" of Afghanistan. It seems as though he is trying to make us believe that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, and therefore, we still have to keep fighting in Afghanistan. That sounds good to people who aren't paying attention, in large part because this is what Obama has been saying his whole campaign. The following is what he said during Meet the Press.

"The second thing is that we need a strategic partnership with all the parties in the region--Pakistan and India and the Afghan government--to stamp out the kind of militant, violent, terrorist extremists that have set up base camps and that are operating in ways that threaten the security of everybody in the international community. And, as I've said before, we can't continue to look at Afghanistan in isolation. We have to see it as a part of a regional problem that includes Pakistan, includes India, includes Kashmir, includes Iran. And part of the kind of foreign policy I want to shape is one in which we have tough, direct diplomacy combined with more effective military operations, focused on what is the number one threat against U.S. interests and U.S. lives. And that's al-Qaeda and, and, and their various affiliates, and we are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come."

There are a few disturbing things in that paragraph. The first is the leading us to believe that al Qaeda is all over Afghanistan. According to Professor Juan Cole of the Informed Comment website, there is no Al Qaeda in Afganistan. There is the Taliban, but the Taliban didn't attack us. Depending on who you ask, the Taliban may be, or may not be, a terrorist group. At one point they reportedly joined forces with Al Qaeda, but it appears those days are long over. Would we Americans be a terrorist group if we tried to fight invaders to get them to leave our country? Would it be similar, if not the same? Regardless, the Taliban did not attack the U.S. and we seem to be fighting them in order to impose "freedom" on the civilians there, including the ones we are still bombing.

The Taliban members are called "insurgents" only because we are fighting them, and we are only fighting them because they want us, the occupiers, out of their country. Like I've said before, I still don't understand what we're doing in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai wants us out. We have no business imposing our form of government on anyone, especially since it's based on an economic system that is causing terrible financial problems in the entire world right now. "Freedom" to the Bush administration equals unregulated capitalism. It has, and had, nothing to do with civil rights or the Constitutuion, or actual "freedom", all of which Bush and his cohorts have frequently and happily crapped on.

Juan Cole wrote:

"Obama, who is retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, said he would give him a new mission, of getting out of Iraq and combatting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (I don't think there is any al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; at least, no captures there have been announced to my knowledge since 2002)."

So . . . . . if there are no al Qaeda in Afganistan, and we are only fighting the locals now, it stands to reason that will change when Obama actually becomes president, because as a policy, that makes no sense. Can we presume a new policy means we will be fighting al Qaeda where they actually are -- in the mountains on the north edge of Pakistan? In Pakistan? In India? Keep in mind, he mentioned all these countries, and in the two where al Qaeda probably lurks, there are also quite a few nuclear weapons. This is not a good mix.

Obama also said, "We are going to go after them fiercely in the years to come." Years to come. It is unacceptable to me and many other peace-loving people that we will be at war in that "region" for years to come. These wars have to end and they have to end soon.

I don't know if this will make any difference, but it's worth a try: There is a website besides change.gov where you can weigh in on what you want Obama to do on "Day One". You can vote on the ideas that have been proposed already, many of which are very hard to choose between because they are nearly the same. President Obama may or may not see these answers but it's fun to pretend we have a say in things anyway. Vote here on: On/Day/1.

It is a "Contest of Ideas" I wish I'd known about a month ago, because I would have certainly submitted different ideas than I see there, but some of them are close enough.

Hopefully I'm misinterpreting everything Obama is saying about the "War on Terror". Obama also said we need to fight militarily in the region, and do it more strongly, so I doubt we are misinterpreting anything. The rest of the world's leaders are not too eager to stop these wars either. After all, we are having an economic crisis, and there is nothing for an economic crisis (so goes the conventional wisdom) like a long war. Except in this case, these wars will bankrupt us instead of helping the economy. The time to pressure the new administration to listen to the peace movement is now.

Cross-posted at Civilianism

There's more: "Obama Talks War on Meet the Press" >>

Maliki Schooled Bush

After opposing "timelines for withdrawal" from Iraq on principle for years now, the Bush Administration has agreed to one. One of the things that struck me about the article was the way time constraints led to the Administration giving in on one of its key lines in the sand. My guess is that Iraqi officials stalled, and Bush blinked:

The U.S. government has lobbied hard for the status-of-forces agreement, which would replace a United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. presence that expires on Dec. 31. Without some legal umbrella, the 150,000 U.S. forces would have to end their operations in Iraq in a few weeks' time, military officials said.

...

One issue is timing: The notoriously slow-moving Iraqi parliament is scheduled to adjourn on Nov. 25 for a three-week break to allow lawmakers to make the hajj pilgrimage. "We have a limited window of time," warned Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister.

America has been generally belligerent toward the nascent Iraqi state, treating their clear wishes, such as timelines, as the suggestions of politicians clearly out of their depth.

This paternalism is the sort of thing that hawks believe projects strength, but by refusing to budge on Iraq's (and the rest of the world's) demands for more autonomy, reductions in U.S. forces, legal accountability for the actions of U.S. military and civilian personnel and a timeline for withdrawal, America has backed itself into a corner where the only options were "leave soon" or "leave now." America could have spent the last five and a half years working in good faith with Iraqi officials to transfer authority as soon as possible, but instead Bush insisted on calling the shots, thus weakening his position when the inevitable day came when America had to negotiate.

Maliki was aware of this, but the Administration seemed to be oblivious. Another example of the grotesque hubris and myopia that have characterized the Bush years. Basically, Maliki schooled Bush.

(Cross-posted at Decline and Fall.)

There's more: "Maliki Schooled Bush" >>

Somebody Should Ask John McCain Why

AP/Mary Altaffer

he won't release his medical records, despite repeated requests, says Raw Story.

Senator McCain, you're in your 70s. Your grandfather died young (61 years), your father died at the age of 70, relatively young also. You've had repeated bouts of a particularly lethal form of cancer:

In 1993, McCain had a cancerous mole removed from his shoulder that proved to be melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, according to medical records he released in December 1999 when he was diagnosed with a recurrence [emphasis ours, Ed.] of the disease.

Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer, blamed for 7,700 deaths annually in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. The organization also notes that 47,700 Americans will be diagnosed with the disease this year.

The Wall Street Journal says McCain's had four melanomas removed.

And you were tortured as a POW. You have to release your records. It's not an option for you. People, if the man does not release his medical records and his tax records, how can you vote for him? We're no spring chickens here at La Casa de Los Gatos, and we know the impact aging has had on our health.

And what about mental functioning? Eight years of a dumbkopf in the highest position in the land &mdash a man who can't string eight words into a correct sentence &mdash is plenty enough. Every time we walk into a room and find ourselves thinking, "Now, what did I come here for?" we wonder if that's what is making McCain repeatedly confuse Sunni with Shi'a, and putting al Qaeda in training in Iran, and telling undoubtedly horrified Israelis that Purim is the Jewish version of fucking Halloween, wouldja believe? And we're decades younger than that old fart.

You can't be serious, Senator. You owe it to voters to let them know if you're suffering from something that will make you hit the wrong button at the wrong time. If you can't keep yourself from hitting Rick Renzi, how can we trust you alone with Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin? Assuming, of course, that you can remember who they are.

In other, more heartening, news, ABC's Martha Raddatz apparently found only one McCain supporter among the troops in Iraq, although she implied that there may be more. (Sure. They're probably Stateside already.) And this was after Snarly McCrashcart showed up to give his rah-rah talk on how they goddamned well volunteered for the fucking war and they could just fucking fuck themselves and stay there till Der Leader was good and ready for what remained of them to come home. Yeah, fuck you too, Dick. Send your worthless taxpayer-titsucking daughters to the frontline, why don't you? Surely they don't have "other priorities," do they? Video clip of Dick at Raw Story, in case you need to go on a diet.

Incidentally, it appears as if the vultures of the press, always ready to attack Hillary Clinton for any reason they can think of (boobs! She has boobs! Cackle! She cackles! crying! She CRIED! &mdash whatever, you worthless turds) haven't said word one about McCain's dragging his feet on releasing either his medical records or his tax records. Senator Clinton has released her tax records; Senator Obama released his a long time ago. Senator McCain, how about you step up to the plate and release yours?

While you're about it, please get your eyes checked. We're aghast at a Reuters headline telling us you "... see Iraq success." What the hell is this success, and where are you seeing it? All we see is about one million dead Iraqis, 2-3 million Iraqi refugees, Iraqi women forced into prostitution to feed their families and murdered for failing to adhere to sufficiently oppressive dress codes, millions of wounded and maimed Iraqi men, women, and children, over four thousand dead Americans, thirty or forty thousand wounded American troops, and goodness knows how many psychologically destroyed human beings. If this is your definition of success, perhaps we shouldn't allow you within a mile of the nuclear button. We're thinkin' you'd feel positively successalicious if you could press it and blow all of us up.

For those of you who think "success" means your friends, relatives, and fellow-citizens return pronto with all limbs intact, here's a petition you can sign to end the war in Iraq.

For those of you who'd like to impeach the sanctimonious, smarmy shits who are responsible for all that death and suffering, check out this PDF, sign it, encourage your neighbours and friends and relatives to sign it, and send it to the appropriate Congresscritter.

Somebody should ask McCain and that "ass-kissing chickenshit" (Admiral Fallon's words) General Betrayus whether success includes thousands of the people you trained taking their training and their weapons over to the other side.

Crossposted over at ThePoliticalCat.

There's more: "Somebody Should Ask John McCain Why" >>

Petraeus Dithers, Then Plays Ball

Michael Goldfarb is right to chastise some on the left for wanting to have it both ways regarding the Petraeus testimony--either Petraeus is a stooge for the Administration or he isn't. Here's the General's hand-wringing non-response to Sen. Warner's question of whether the Iraq war is making America safer:

"I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."

That reaction seems to me to be a tacitly negative response. If he were truly the lapdog that he's been accused of being, he would have at least muttered something incoherent about success in Iraq being a "vital national interest" or something, but instead he hid behind what is, in all honesty, at least a somewhat legitimate dodge: it's not his job to assess the war's implications for the overall national security of the United States.

I say "somewhat legitimate," because, as a Four-Star General, one would think that he would have pondered this question at least a bit. Even if he hasn't spent his waking hours as MNF-I Commander agonizing over the pros and cons of the Iraq War vis-a-vis the threat to America proper, he certainly ought to have at least entertained some thoughts in that direction during the years he spent at the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center writing the Army's Counter-Insurgency doctrine. After all, he was back in the U.S. working explicitly on the Army's broader missions, which one would think would include things that fell under the heading of "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

So actually, Petraeus should have been able to answer that question more fully at the time. Given the constraints of the political circus that his testimony could only be, I can understand why he would hesitate to dive right in with a bold declaration that the Iraq War is doing bupkis to protect America.

But then he got his bearings, remembered why he was there, and came clean in exactly the incoherent "vital interest" vein that we have come to expect from a political class that excels at saying nothing:

Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise.

But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests — achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer really, to come back to it is yes.

"Very, very clear and very serious" national interests. Good boy. No word yet on what those interests actually are.

I suspect that his initial instinct--to run from that question with all his might because he knows the frank answer will be counter-productive to his Commander-in-Chief's staged love-in for a tragically ill-advised and destructive campaign--was borne out of unease. That hesitation betrayed a lot more about Petraeus' thoughts than anyone with a political axe to grind--left or right--is willing to admit.

I suspect that he is a man who is conflicted about the overall war, his role in it, and his responsibilities as a commander tasked with managing it. That he only came to his senses and played the political ball game when he had been allowed a moment to consider his options at least says that he has struggled with his faith.

Anyone who has ever believed in something and been put in a position where they had to act on those beliefs but entertained thoughts to the contrary should understand this. I know I do, because I came to Iraq the first time in 2004 with nothing but praise for the enterprise, only coming to realize that it was a bad idea and a lost cause after experience and reflection. That was a long process, though. Could General Petraeus be going through a similar existential crisis? I'd like to think so.

But even after changing my mind, I still had (and have) a job to do, as does Petraeus, only in a vastly more significant way. While I'm free to distance myself intellectually from the strategy and the entire war, he isn't. As Goldfarb concludes, "he's not there to defend the war--despite what the left is saying--he's there to defend the strategy." Goldfarb is right about that, but only in the sense that this "report" isn't really a report; it's a public relations campaign for a failed strategy. In a political culture that was less poisoned by naked partisanship, he would have been there to report on a strategy. But we always knew that wouldn't really be the case. Only a partisan hack like Goldfarb, however, would call that a good thing.

Cross-posted at Decline and Fall.

There's more: "Petraeus Dithers, Then Plays Ball" >>

War On Terror: The Rise Of The Politics of Fear: Nightmares, Lies And Manipulations

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and strafing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incendiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." --War Crimes

The 1990/91 Gulf War, The Death Of Reason, the ensuing long years of the sanctions war against the people of Iraq, the 2003 invasion of the country, and the ongoing occupation of Iraq since, are all aspects of and symptoms created by something much larger and much more insidious: War On Terror: The Rise Of The Politics of Fear.

To help shake off and counteract what Maryscott O'Connor called "the System's monopoly over opinion-moulding", watch the following BBC documentary from Adam Curtis. It's a long one, three hours in total, split into three one hour segments. I highly recommend it for a fuller and clearer historical context and understanding of how we got to where we are today.

Video: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
Written and produced by Adam Curtis, via AxisOfLogic, 06 August 2007

Editor's Note: This 3-hour, BBC documentary shows that the "threat of terrorism" is to a very large extent, "a fantasy manufactured by politicians, national security profiteers and Islamic terrorists in order to project and consolidate their own political power". The documentary reveals the origins of the "war on terrorism" in the Reagan Administration under the influence of Neocons like Michael Ledeen and their ally, former CIA Chief, William Casey. The two videos below offer a taste of the entire documentary which is linked below the following brief video excerpts. - LMB (Les Blough, AxisOfLogic)

Here are two short excerpts: (You can watch the full 3 hour production in 3 parts, on the flip)

Video Excerpt: Interview of Melvin Goodman, Head of Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-1987: "The CIA's chief of Soviet affairs from 1976 to 1987 admits Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union".

Video Excerpt: CIA admits that "lies became reality" while hyping the Soviet threat. (includes Michael Ledeen, pro-war neocon, and his argument installing "democracy" by force in other sovereign nations. Melvin Goodman describes the beginning of the mythological "war on terror" under Ronald Reagan.)

Watch the full 3 hour production in 3 parts, on the flip
The first 2 1/2 minutes of each video below have the same intro.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares - Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

Articles on Hyping Terror:

Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
by Thom Hartmann

The Myth of an al Qaeda Takeover of Iraq
by Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute

Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"
by Glenn Greenwald

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/nmares.html

There's more: "War On Terror: The Rise Of The Politics of Fear:
Nightmares, Lies And Manipulations" >>

Who Pays The Price For The Idiocy?

Iraq Ambush Caps Bloodiest Months for US
By Robert H. Reid, The Associated Press, Friday 29 June 2007

Baghdad - A huge bomb explosion followed by a hail of gunfire and grenades killed five U.S. soldiers, the military said Friday. The attack climaxed the deadliest three-month period for the Americans since the war began.

Seven soldiers were wounded in the attack Thursday in the Rasheed district, a mixed Sunni-Shiite area of southern Baghdad where U.S.- led forces recently stepped up pressure on extremists. The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad suggested the ambush could be part of an escalating backlash by Sunni insurgents.

Those deaths brought to 99 the number of U.S. troops killed this month, according to an Associated Press count. The toll for the past three months - 329 - made it the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., who heads U.S. forces in the Iraqi capital, said U.S. casualties had mounted because Sunni extremists are "starting to fight very hard" as U.S. forces press into areas of the capital where militants once had free rein.

Part of an escalating backlash by Sunni insurgents?

As I noted on Thursday, these would be the same Sunni insurgents that Bush, out of his "respect" for the US military, has decided to supply with weapons:

The "insurgency" IS Iraq. It is Iraqis.

By arming Sunnis to ostensibly help fight al-Qaeda (who was NOT in Iraq before the invasion and is such a small minority the Iraqis will slit all their throats the moment they are not distracted by throwing the US out) but who will use the help to fight Shias Bush is now taking sides in a civil war with people who composed Saddam's Ba'ath Party, against the very Shia backed puppet government Bush set up in the first place.

There's more: "Who Pays The Price For The Idiocy?" >>

Defunding Iraq: 96% In Favor: The Poll Continues As More Register Support Everyday

>>> GO VOTE THE POLL.

The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.

It's the biggest load of crap there is.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is part of the big lie.

If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullshit and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

As John Freelund wrote on May 27 at TPMCafe:

Pin Bush and Gates Down

At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggest question 1-5 be the following:

"Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

If the Democrats don't want to do the right thing... it becomes obvious that they want to continue the occupation.

For what? Cheap gasoline? Or the neocon vision of world domination?

What has been needed all along and is needed now is for the Democrats to show that they have some balls and display A Measure of Morality in Congress:

If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?

What the Peace Movement Should Do Now
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 06, 2007
Robin Hahnel:

While it is important for supporters, activists, and leaders of the peace movement to engage in some thoughtful soul searching over program and strategy, I am concerned that the most urgent activity the peace movement should be organizing is going neglected. We need a massive showing of anti-war sentiment in the fall of 2007, and this can only happen if the major peace organizations launch the initiative now.

An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now. If anyone believed the Democrats in Congress were going to end the fiasco without massive pressure from the peace movement, that illusion just flew out the window with the Democrats acquiescing in funding the war without even any deadlines for withdrawal. Whether one thinks of it as making more Democratic lawmakers afraid to anger the peace movement, or showing sympathetic Democrats that the peace movement can cover their backs when Republicans try to pin the disaster on any who vote to cut off funding, is of little practical importance. The overwhelming antiwar sentiment that already exists must be mobilized.

It has to be in the fall of 2007 because spring 2008 is too late. First, most Americans understand that every month that passes is more American and Iraqi lives lost for absolutely nothing. Second, the Democrats in Congress will face important choices in September, so that is when the pressure needs to be applied. And third, by spring 2008 too many supporters and activists in the peace movement will be drawn into primary campaigns. Unless we have made ourselves vocal and visible as an oppositional movement, the pressure to subordinate peace politics to the strategies of the candidates will be overwhelming.

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies
The updated story is here and with 96% In Favor: Polling Continues....

Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War?

** END THE IRAQ DEBACLE TO AVOID A DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL DEBACLE IN 2008 **

>>> GO VOTE THE POLL.

There's more: "Defunding Iraq: 96% In Favor: The Poll Continues As More Register Support Everyday" >>

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

The entire debate about NOT funding the occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle revolves around one piece of propaganda that has been sold to the public in one of the most heinous aggregations of misperceptions, disinformation, and outright lies ever foisted on a public that cares for the lives of the American troops sent into Iraq, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.

The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.

It's the biggest load of crap there is.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

They know it is a lie when Bush says it.

Yet they turn right around and tell people (repeating the lie) that advocating not funding the occupation is advocating not funding the troops.

Emergency supplemental funding for a war or for an occupation is not for the troops. It never has been for the troops. It will never be for the troops.

NOT passing emergency supplemental funding does not hurt the troops. It never has hurt the troops. It will never hurt the troops.

Not passing emergency supplemental funding is simply NOT FUNDING the occupation. That is all it is.

UPDATE June 12:

DEAN BAKER, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research: [h/t to MO Blue]:

"The latest version of the 'hide behind the troops' mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. The story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand.According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.

"This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military."

--Institute for Public Accuracy

The situation is process analogous to to a business enterprise that has, for example, 100 employeees to whom they pay salaries and provide food and lodging. The budget for that is something planned for every year. We'll call that the budget for the 'troops'.

One year they decide to take on an extra contract to complete a project in another city and they send those 100 employees (troops) to the new city.

The project will require incurring added costs over and above the budget for the employees (troops), so management arranges a bank loan to pay for the added costs for transportation, materials, overtime, extra fuel required, etc. etc.

They then begin to run into delays, extreme competition from a better suited and skilled company, and start incurring huge cost overruns, which they cover with repeated visits to the bank for more loans.

Eventually the bank says look - this is bankrupting you and placing your employees in danger of being abandonded in the new city if you continue down this path - here is your last loan - it will cover you for 90 days, after which the bank will provide no more money for this project. Your regular budget covers your employment (troop) costs. Bring them home to their original city and continue operating there. Your project in the new city is failing.

None of the bank loans had anything to do with the regular budget for the employees (troops).

UPDATE June 14: Senator Russ Feingold, Fact Sheet

On numerous occasions, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to limit the President’s ability to escalate existing military engagements.  Here are just a few examples:

• Cambodia – In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.


• Vietnam – In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.


• Somalia – In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.


• Bosnia – In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops:

You Can't Hurt a Troop By Defunding a War:

The funding is not for the troops.

When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

...the money that would be required to bring our troops safely home is such a small fraction of the Pentagon's budget, or even of the cash that the Pentagon has "misplaced" in Iraq, that there can be no question of ever cutting it off. The Pentagon could fund a withdrawal and never notice the financial expense.

So, when we talk about cutting off funding "for the troops," what are we really talking about?

We must be talking about their meals and armor and vehicles. But there are several problems with making that sort of claim. First, by cutting off funding after a certain date and demanding that the troops be brought home before that date, you are not denying them anything they need while they are deployed.

Second, we have never provided them adequate supplies and services, and the Congress Members who have pushed to cut off the war funding are some of the same ones who have pushed hardest to try to change that.

Third, the war funding has nothing to do with changing the level of equipment and services we provide the troops; the big bucks go to mercenaries, not troops; and the really big bucks go to the profiteers providing the worst services for the highest prices.

Fourth, if we start to talk about the need for troops to protect other troops, we get into an inescapable escalation without end.

When the Democrats or anyone else claim that the money is for the troops, they, just like George Bush, are quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

The TROOPS are funded by regular appropriations. DOD budget. Emergency supplemental funding has nothing to do with "funding the troops".

It does buy, among other things such as logistical support from Halliburton, Parsons, and DynCorp, fuel, in theater equipment maintenance, bullets, cluster bombs, etc., etc., IOW all the "stuff" needed to continue the occupation. The troops use that "stuff" in the continuance of that occupation, and to defend themselves and stay alive (as best they can) while continuing that occupation. Defunding the occupation of Iraq and withdrawing or redeploying the troops does not hurt the troops. It helps them to stay alive.

Emergency supplemental funding is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats recently passed.

War And Occupation Funding: More Cooking The Books By Bush And Pentagon?

"Since 9/11, Congress has passed at least one emergency bill to cover war costs, making supplemental spending the method of choice for the majority of funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror," Alexander added. "Of the $510 billion spent thus far, $331.8 billion (about 65 percent) has come from supplemental spending legislation. If the so-called "bridge fund" included in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill is included, the total rises to $401.8 billion. That means nearly 80 percent of all funding for these wars was the result of emergency and supplemental spending, not regular budgetary means."

The total funds requested by the Defense Department for emergency spending is $163.4 billion, including $70 billion already provided as part of DOD's regular fiscal year appropriations plus a new supplemental request of $93.4 billion.

"If enacted, DOD's funding would increase by 40 percent above the previous year and would more than double from the FY2004 funding level," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says.

As Glenn Greenwald noted on May 26 in Salon:

In Newsweek, Jonathan Alter has a long article defending -- as lamentably necessary -- the decision of the Democrats to fund the Iraq war without any limitations.
...
Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.

Emergency Supplementals, besides the things I mentioned above, also pay for:

a U.S. force in Iraq that is effectively double the size that most people are aware of, and a system where national duty is outbid by profits:

Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill.

Working for U.S. companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp and companies from other countries, according to Scahill's investigations:

Some contractors make in a month what many active-duty soldiers make in a year. Indeed, there are private contractors in Iraq making more money than the Secretary of Defense and more than the commanding generals.

Here is a video of Jeremy Scahill's testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense about the impact of private military contractors on the conduct of the Iraq War:

The full text of Jeremy Scahill's testimony is in his May 11, 2007 article at The Nation, "Outsourcing the War".

I repeat, Emergency Supplemental Funding is not for the troops. It is only for the occupation. When Bush says differently, or when the Democratic Leadership says differently, or when a troll here says differently.... it is a lie.

The "war" has been funded with emergency supplemental funding for years. There is plenty of money for withdrawing in regular budget without the emergency supplemental the Democrats just passed.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to stop lying and start being honest with the public.

The lies are killing the sons and daughters of that public.

Rep. David Obey - last year (Library of Congress - Thomas 2006):

I. THE TRUE COST OF THE WAR

Congress appropriates funding for the Iraq war much like the Administration prosecutes it: recklessly, and without being honest with the American people.

Once again, funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars--$50 billion in this case--are provided as an `emergency supplemental' in this bill. All told, Congress will have provided the Defense Department with $450 billion of emergency funding for this war.

To treat funding for the Iraq war as an unexpected emergency is a perversion of the term. By way of comparison, the Vietnam War required only a single supplemental, after which it was financed through the regular budget process.

While not an emergency, this funding is provided as such because it is politically expedient. It allows the Administration and the Congress to avoid the budgetary tradeoffs and to hide the full cost of the war. It is part of the Administration's strategy of providing the facts about Iraq on the installment plan.

In April of 2003, the President signed the first Iraq supplemental providing $62.6 billion for the Defense Department. This was after the President's budget director told the New York Times that the war would cost between $50 and $60 billion.

In November of 2003, when the President signed a second supplemental providing $64.9 billion for the Defense Department, the White House termed it a 'one-time, wartime supplemental.' Nine months later Congress provided $25 billion of additional emergency funding.

In May of 2005, the President signed a third supplemental providing $75.7 billion for the Defense Department and told us that democracy was taking root in Iraq. Seven months later, as civil war rocked Iraq, Congress provided an additional $50 billion of emergency funding.

This week, Congress passed another $65.8 billion supplemental. The same day, in a surprise visit to Iraq, the President once again linked the Iraq war and the attacks of September 11th--an assertion that is patently false and that only he and the Vice President appear to still believe.

In this bill, the House will approve another $50 billion more in emergency funding for Iraq to cover operations through the spring of 2007. As was the case with previous Iraq supplementals, these costs will be tacked on to this President's greatest legacy--a massive $300 billion plus deficit. The result is that future generations will be forced to pay the financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy.

For several years, I have asked the Administration to come forward with 5-year estimates of the war costs so that Congress could get a better sense of how to balance the books. The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Conference Report included a general provision requiring the Administration to do just that. No such report was ever provided. The President chose to waive the requirement by certifying in writing that providing these cost estimates would harm national security.

The only harm that would come from providing estimates of future war costs would be to the political fortunes of those who insist on funding this war through emergency supplementals instead of being honest with the public about the war's real cost. More than three years into this war it is clear that honesty is too much to expect from this Administration.

Boston Globe, September 2006 Congressional Analysis: Cost of Iraq war nearly $2b a week:

The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.

But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in "investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls "reset" costs.

So the only way the funding can be said to be "for the troops" is if the intention is to keep them in Iraq for many years.

The Pentagon, which had previously made public its own estimate of operating costs, has not released up-to-date war costs.

The Congressional Research Service report estimates that after Congress approves two pending bills, the total war costs since Sept. 11, 2001, will reach about $509 billion. Of that, $379 billion will cover the cost of operations in Iraq, $97 billion will be the price tag for Afghanistan operations, and $26 billion will have gone to beefed-up security at US military bases around the world.
...
Another major war cost is for infrastructure -- bases, landing strips, repair shops -- for the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "operations and maintenance" costs remained steady at about $40 billion per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but have spiked to more than $60 billion this year.

Those factors alone, however, are "not enough to explain" the spiraling increase in operating costs, according to the report.

"You would expect [operating costs] to level off if you have the same level of people," said the report's principal author, Amy Belasco, a national defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "You shouldn't have as much cost to fix buildings that were presumably repaired when you got there. It's a bit mysterious."

The Pentagon has not provided Congress with a detailed accounting of all the war funds, making it impossible to conduct a full, independent estimate of how much Americans are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or to predict what future costs might be.

The Institute for Policy Studies, in The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops, provides a detailed breakdown of the Human Costs... Security Costs... Economic Costs... and Social Costs of the Iraq occupation.

I couldn't do a cost/benefit analysis. I couldn't find any 'benefit'.

The Iraqis Have A Word: "Sahel"

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

The word is "sahel", and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.
...
Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.

There's more: "Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies" >>

Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline

Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday. While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

A Measure of Morality in Congress
by David Swanson, March 22, 2007, when the current battle over supplemental funding for the Iraq Occupation began.

If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?

There's more: "Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline" >>

Chicago Sun-Times Op Ed: Dems Letting The Country Down On Iraq

Hat tip to Big Tent Democrat at Talkleft today for this.

Bring troops home now
Monroe Anderson, Chicago Sun-Times, May 20, 2007

We're waist-deep in George W. Bush's nightmarish Middle East misadventure as the new, theoretically empowered Democrats are difficult to distinguish from the old, hamstrung Dems of a year ago. They're still too timid.

Rather than deftly acting to bring the troops home, the Democrats continue their eye-shifting and throat-clearing while the killing and dying go on and on. Last week, the new majority party yielded to the oxymoron argument that we have to support the troops by keeping them in the line of fire. The Feingold-Reid Iraq Bill that would have cut the funding and thereby forced the president to bring the troops home was defeated Wednesday in the Senate. On a procedural vote, the proposal that would have cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31 of next year fell 31 votes short of the number needed to advance, losing 29-67.

The bill was defeated even as three U.S. soldiers remain missing and the death toll in Iraq is rising. The bill was defeated even as our puppet Iraqi government continues with its plans for a two-month vacation while the American men and women serving in their country are getting three months added to their yearlong tours of duty. The bill was defeated even as reports of poor care at Walter Reed Hospital for the mounting number of wounded troops is barely yesterday's news.

The Americans who voted the Democrats into power have been let down. Instead of counting on the Democrats to deliver on their implicit promise to end the occupation, we continue to count the costs of not correcting Bush's calamitous course.

Read the whole thing...

There's more: "Chicago Sun-Times Op Ed: Dems Letting The Country Down On Iraq" >>

A Sickeningly Immoral Charade

Top down authoritarian rule is what the Republicans offer. The DLC is not encouraging diversity of ideas, or anything different from what the Republicans are offering, when it comes to the Iraq occupation.

They are offering a democratic version of the war, with a makeup job to make it look and smell good. New and improved! Better than the Rethug version! Just look at this baby!

Like dressing up a rusted out old car with nothing more then a cheap paint job and some shiny hubcaps, they are selling the same old deathtrap underneath the glossy shine.

The Democratic leadership thinks they can win by funding the occupation so that it will still be going on next year for them to run against. They cynically want and need the occupation to continue for what they think will be their own political gain.

To do that they have to pay for it. With American lives. And Iraqi lives.

As soon as they do the electorate will blame the occupation on the Democrats.

The Republicans are a top down authoritarian organized machine. Not many will flip to oppose Bush as the DLC hopes they will in the fantasies they are selling to people of building a veto proof majority to someday legislate an end to the occupation. They are laughing at the Democrats fighting amongst and dividing themselves.

The DLC, when they lose next year, will blame their loss on people who advocated defunding and ending the occupation by saying that there was no unity behind continuing to fund death to run against.

Wonderful scenario.

The only way out of it is by the Democratic Leadership defunding the occupation. By doing that they will cut the feet off the Republicans.

It's the only way that makes any sense.

The Bush Veto, the Democrats' Response, and Why Millions Must Break with the Politics of Empire:

Despite protestations by leading Democrats like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who claims, "make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war"), the bill they sent to Bush and their response to his veto illustrate that their position on the war is a thoroughly imperialist one, making them unwilling and unable to really end the war.

First, the appropriations bill they drafted never called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq--much less the Middle East. It called for a phased withdrawal of most combat forces, but envisioned leaving thousands of soldiers in Iraq indefinitely to fight "terrorists," protect U.S. installations, and train Iraqi forces. And U.S. forces redeployed to other countries in the region would be available to re-invade Iraq and/or be used to attack other countries in the region. It is also very exposing that the Democrats refused to include language in the bill requiring Bush to consult Congress before attacking Iran .

Second, the logic of the bill was to threaten troop withdrawals to force the Iraqi government to meet U.S. "benchmarks" such as passing an oil bill, building their armed forces, disarming militias, and curbing the civil war/sectarian violence dynamic now gripping Iraq. These are the same goals Bush spelled out in his January 10 address to the nation, aimed at creating a stable, pro-U.S. government in Iraq. The Democrats also want to cut U.S. losses, preserve the military, and regroup to defend broader U.S. regional interests.

When Bush vetoed the bill, and the Democrats failed to override it, they immediately began talking about concessions: giving Bush the money he wanted and removing any timetables for troop withdrawals. Simply refusing to fund the war (including by filibustering) wasn't considered.

Theater of Death:

...for our ruling elites, the suffering and death of innocent people, American, Iraqi or of any other nationality, are not of primary importance. In the perverse scheme of their priorities, such matters appear well down on the list. Their major and often sole concern is political power: its acquisition, its maintenance and its expansion. Tactics of only one kind are their concern: the means by which their own power is maintained and enhanced.

It is deeply regrettable, and also inevitable - since the world of political blogs cannot be other than a reflection of the larger culture - that this same indifference to human pain and suffering infects the approach of the great majority of political bloggers. For all their ferocious opposition to the Bush administration and to Republicans generally, [some] liberal and progressive bloggers act as if they are largely indifferent to bringing about a quick end to the incomprehensibly deadly Iraq occupation. They certainly demonstrate no sustained, serious effort to pressure Congressional Democrats into defunding the war - or into acting to oppose an attack on Iran in every way possible. The concerns of these bloggers and the Washington Democrats are perfectly coextensive: they will condemn the Iraq war and act to block an attack on Iran only to the degree such actions will not endanger their perceived political opportunities in 2008.

Original published 05/19/2007 at Edgeing: A Sickeningly Immoral Charade

There's more: "A Sickeningly Immoral Charade" >>