Political activist Michael Moore distributed a to his supporters this morning calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops -- not six months from now, but immediately:
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiersshould be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there?Talk about not getting the hint.
Certainly an opinionated individual. He was right about Iraq in 2004. Maybe he is right again. Although I disagree somewhat with an "immediate" withdrawal (for logistical reasons), his basic points are right on.
In a classified memo that was leaked to the New York Times.
Another was leaked to the New York Times, and appears in Wednesday's newspaper. This memo was written by President Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. In the memo, Hadley expresses a lack of optimism about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's view of reality. This memo from Hadley was sent to President Bush and his cabinet:
Here are some excerpts:
Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish partnership, andin my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader whowanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to doso...
...Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanderson the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government.Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by theprime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targetsand to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s mosteffective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shiamajorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation ofJaish al-Mahdi’s (JAM) [the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army] killings —all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.
Great. So Maliki seems more interested in consolidating Shiite power than actually bringing Iraq together. That brings us to the saddest part of this memo:
The information he receives is undoubtedly skewed by his small circleof Dawa advisers, coloring his actions and interpretation of reality.His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitivereporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy andforce positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdadsuggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresentinghis intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turnhis good intentions into action.
Again, these were the words of Bush's National Security Adviser. Simply stunning! And only Bush's cabinet had access to this memo, probably indicating that it was one of them who leaked it. Remember, decades ago it was Kissinger who leaked information about Nixon to the New York Times. Therefore, it could be anybody within Bush's cabinet.
The relationship between President Bush and newly-elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb is not off to a good start. According to magazine, Webb nearly slugged Bush during a verbal exchange at a private White House reception. The has a transcript of how it went down:
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That'sbetween me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending theconversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
According to newspaper, a source said Webb told people he felt like decking the President:
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this thathe was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, butof course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’tbe taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.
Webb to reporters that the exchange took place:
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and GeorgeW. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which heconfirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to theinstitution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward toworking with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolicthings to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
Oh man! I'm glad Webb kept himself in check, or else this is all that people would talk about between now and January. Webb probably would have been censured, and maybe even forced to resign from the Senate. Of course, Bush had no clue what he was talking about -- that was probably what ticked Webb off the most. Bush is not a military guy. His daughters are not over in Iraq fighting. Webb probably didn't want Bush to pretend he was interested in his son.
Youtube did it again. They shut their site down last night for maintenance, meaning that I was unable post the videos this morning. Sorry about that. I will try to post some later today. I hope you all like my other posts.
Al-Qaeda has almost no influence on Iraq's affairs. Bush is just as wrong today as he was three years ago.
Yesterday, President Bush that al-Qaeda was responsible for most of the violence in Iraq. But later that evening, NBC's Pentagon correspondent that al-Qaeda only makes up between two to three percent of all enemy fighters. This adds validity to a report in September that analyzed how al-Qaeda only accounted for 5% of all Sunni Arab insurgents.
In other words, the violence has less to do with foreign fighters entering the country than it does with locals battling one another, and whose families have lived in Iraq for thousands of years. Therefore, the Republican argument that we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq so we won't fight them here on our shores is a flawed one. Al-Qaeda has a minimal presence in Iraq, if any. They are in Afghanistan, where we have one-seventh the troop strength that we currently have in Iraq. If you want to go after those that attacked us on 9/11, then you fight them in Afghanistan. The civil war in Iraq is something that we are responsible for creating. Why should we continue to waste money prolonging it?
Iraq never had anything to do with al-Qaeda, and still doesn't. The only worry we should have with regard to the civil war in Iraq is its potential to spill over into the greater Middle East region. Sending more U.S. troops into the country will not stop the political tension, and might cause terrorist militias to be more aggressive when implementing their violent tactics. All that we can do is redeploy our troops to the periphery, let them fight it out, secure the borders with a multilateral force, help protect refugees, and hold a strategic summit with every Middle East country to prevent this chaos from spilling over and becoming a regional conflict. Obviously that is just one idea. We should be open to others as well.
But please, by all means, stop with this al-Qaeda-Iraq nonsense. Bush knows that by putting the two together he can rhetorically manipulate some Americans into believing that sending more young Americans to die in Iraq is a smart idea. And where are the Democrats on this? They need to do a more effective job of challenging the Administration.
Bottom line: al-Qaeda is not Iraq, and Iraq is not al-Qaeda. End of story.
Who stands the best shot at winning the Democratic nomination? This is the first in a series of weekly posts that will forecast the odds that each Democratic hopeful has in winning the nomination.
As the war in Iraq boils over and the Democratic Congress prepares to assume its leadership position in January, it is probably not a good idea to become too fixated on the 2008 race for president. I don't plan to analyze this each day between now and next fall. However, this winter is a time in which a lot of candidates will start making formal announcements. In the coming weeks, I will pay close attention to who is thinking of joining the field.
As General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential candidate, yesterday, he made a strategic error by getting into the race so late last time around. When he joined the field in September of 2003, he hardly had any funds and did not even hire a campaign manager until November. By that time, he only had two months until the Iowa Caucus. From watching what happened to Clark in '03, candidates will want to get in early. Setting up a presidential exploratory committee offers potential contenders a loophole in the federal elections law that allows them to raise cash without formally declaring their candidacy. Since Hillary Clinton already raised tens of millions of dollars, hardly anyone will be able to compete with her unless they start setting up exploratory committees immediately.
Without further adieu, here are the odds for each of the possible Democratic contenders. I base this on potential appeal in early battleground states, unfavorable rating, potential issues in late-'07 and early-'08, fundraising potential, and net-roots support. This is more or less my analytical bias, and does not represent any bias for who I want the Democratic nominee to be (I am undecided, anyway!):
Hillary Clinton - 24% chance
John Edwards - 17% chance
Barack Obama - 16% chance
Al Gore - 15% chance
Evan Bayh - 7% chance
Bill Richardson - 5% chance
Joe Biden - 5% chance
Wesley Clark - 5% chance
Tom Vilsack - 3% chance
John Kerry - 2% chance
Chris Dodd - 1% chance
Keep in mind that these numbers will fluctuate over time, especially when some candidates from this list officially take their names out of the hat.
Every projection like this requires some kind of analysis. Here is the way I see it. Hillary Clinton is definitely in the lead right now, for the most part due to her significant money advantage that would help mobilize get out the vote efforts and travel in the early primary states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina). What she has going against her is her vote for the war and her unpopularity among Democratic activists.
That brings us to the race to become what I call the "anti-Hillary" candidate. As of this moment, there is a log-jam between Barack Obama, John Edwards and Al Gore. Voters who want an alternative besides Hillary Clinton will likely choose between these three candidates. John Edwards is very popular in the labor movement, who are more likely to choose a Washington outsider that has stood against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Al Gore is also a serious threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination, and has a strong following in the Northeast and out West. It still remains to be seen whether Gore's green themes will catch on in Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina. However, being that New Hampshire is in the Northeast, and being that the state has historically respected independent-minded, maverick candidates, Al Gore might even be the odds on favorite there. Then there is the wild card: Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator is also a threat to Hillary Clinton because he will grab a significant portion of the female vote. Already pledging to announce his candidacy on the Oprah Winfrey show, should he decide to enter the race, Obama might cut Hillary's female voting base by a third. Out of the three -- Gore, Edwards and Obama -- Edwards has a slight advantage because of his popularity among local politicians in Iowa and Nevada. Edwards travels to both places more than any other presidential hopeful in both parties. In January of 2004, the Des Moines Register newspaper endorsed him. Over the last half year, Edwards has campaigned with hotel unions in Las Vegas. The Edwards strategy appears center around winning Iowa and Nevada by getting the support of labor unions, while conceding New Hampshire and then going after South Carolina, which he won in 2004.
When you move down the list, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Evan Bayh are still within striking distance. They don't have a lot of name recognition, especially Evan Bayh. But of the three, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh definitely has the advantage. By next fall, those who have never heard of him today will learn to appreciate him as a very positive, consensus-building leader. As an opponent of gay marriage and flag burning, it would be difficult for the Republicans to attack Bayh in the general election. However, his biggest obstacle might come from the NRA, which has consistently opposed his strong gun control stances. He voted for the Iraq war and against partial birth abortion. However, he did vote against a repeal of the estate tax, in support of investigating the no-bid contracts in Iraq, and yes on a bill that would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil (had it passed). He is very much an environmentalist, but conservative on social issues. Bill Richardson and Joe Biden both have foreign policy credentials. It is highly probable that they would be considered as a vice presidential pick.
As far as the remaining candidates are concerned, here is all that needs to be said. John Kerry would be committing political suicide by running again, especially after his botched joke. Chris Dodd lacks publicity. However, if the Connecticut Senator can pass his bill that would repeal the Military Commissions Act, then he will have helped himself. Tom Vilsack has declared his intention to run. Keep in mind though that Vilsack is not even catching on in his home state of Iowa, which still seems to be split between Edwards and Clinton. Wesley Clark lacks both attention and money, therefore he would be wise to enter the race ASAP.
Again, I am going to try and make this a weekly thing. If it catches on, great. If not, then I will find some other way of critiquing the field.
Want a sample of what innocent, hard-working families in Baghdad are going through on a daily basis. Here are some excerpts from a message board through which Iraqis are asking for advice on how to protect their neighborhoods. is the definition of chaos:
To grasp how dire the situation in Baghdad has become over thelast few days, here is a sampling of posts on Iraqi message boardswhere people ask for instructions on how to defend their neighborhoodsfrom marauding militiamen:
Ali - Khadhraa district: Please inform us about the areas that are expected to be targeted, sowe can be prepared. Also please inform us on the necessary steps weshould take to protect our families and ourselves.
Ibn Al-Iraq - Jihad district: Salam Aleikum. I live in the Jihad district. A group from the MahdiArmy tagged Sunni residences and collected their weapons today. God iswitness to what I say.
Mustafa - Ghazaliya district: We have been under mortar fire for two days. It is 10:50 p.m. now andwe can hear heavy gunfire and an attack against mosques in the area.May God save us all from the injustice of aggressors. The son of Anbar - Baghdad: Dear brothers, the Khadhraa and Jami’a districts are in need of ammunition. Please come to our aid.
Ali - Ghazaliya district: Groups from the evil Mahdi Army are preparing to enter Ghazaliya fromthe direction of the Centre Street and near the Muhajireen mosque, butresidents are in control of most of the streets, despite assistancefrom the National Guard [for the Mahdi Army] and their cover for themortar attacks from the Security Street. A woman was injured there fromtheir damn mortars.
Anonymous - Jihad district: Urgent. Please intervene to save the Jihad district from anothermassacre. Interior Ministry commandoes have been transporting fightersand mercenaries from the militias with their buses to theirheadquarters in the district. They are estimated to be around 500mercenaries, fully armed with medium and light weapons. And now some ofthem are taking attack positions in preparation for a new massacre inthe district. The buses have not stopped arriving, even thoughterrified residents have called the police and governmental officials.
Ahmed Al-Janabi - Baghdad: Salam Aleikum. I’m a resident of Yarmouk and I can hear gunfire fromthe Four Streets area as if in warning of an attack of sorts. Godknows. Please come to our aid if the situation worsens.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Qadir - Karkh district: Salam Aleikum. Over 40 vehicles with Mahdi Army militiamen havegathered near the Dora police station. They started arriving at 7 p.m.,and at 7:45 p.m. we could see about 40 vehicles preparing to attackDora.
A few months ago the violence in Iraq reached a record level. But within the last week, things have gotten completely out of control. The Mahdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, is gaining influence, and might ultimately be responsible for turning Iraq into a failed state. His militia is launching attacks against innocent Sunni civilians, and there is little that that official Iraqi army of just more than 10,000 combat-ready troops can do to control it. Meanwhile, U.S. troops are caught in the middle of all this.
So once again -- and this goes to Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boehner -- how is this not a civil war?
"There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull ourtroops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said ina speech setting the stage for high-stakes meetings with the Iraqiprime minister later this week. "We can accept nothing less thanvictory for our children and our grandchildren."
Meanwhile in :
BAGHDAD - Thirty-six bodies with gunshot wounds and some with signsof torture were found in different areas of Baghdad on Tuesday, theInterior Ministry said.
BAGHDAD - Seven mortars fell on the western district of Ghazaliya, wounding 23 people, the Interior Ministry said.
BAGHDAD - Two car bombs close to west Baghdad's main Yarmouk hospitalkilled four people and wounded 40, a source at Baghdad policeheadquarters said. An Interior Ministry source gave the same figure ofcasualties but they said it was one car bomb.KIRKUK - A man wearing an explosive vest blew himself up next to theconvoy of the governor of the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk,killing a passerby and wounding 12 people, the governor and healthofficials said.
MOSUL - A roadsidebomb targeting a police patrol wounded two policemen in the northerncity of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
TAL AFAR - Two policemen were wounded when they entered a housebooby-trapped with explosives in the town of Tal Afar, about 420 km(260 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
What is our mission? What will it look like when the mission is complete? If our goal is to bring stability to Iraq, then it may take decades.
The Republican House and Senate are quickly leaving town without passing nine significant to keep the government running. This tactic has been implemented for two obvious reasons:
Putting this burden on the Democrats would mean that Pelosi and Reid would have to spend less time on their own agenda and more time dealing with these left-over spending bills.
It would add to the total amount of money spent under the Democrats' watch, creating a nice talking point for the Republicans in 2008.
New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is beside himself. He told the today that the Republicans are giving up on the job:
"They're just leaving town, it appears," Reid said from his officein the Capitol. "We hope that's not the case, but it appears that'swhat they are going to do. And so we're going to have to find a way tofund the government for the next year."
The must-pass legislation totals more than $460 billion and promisesto divert time and energy from other items on the Democratic agenda.
Unlike the mere that the Republican Congress showed up to work in 2006, Reid said that the Democrats will make sure the Democratic Congress is up and running:
"We're going to put in some hours here that haven't been put in in along time," Reid said. That means "being here more days in the week andwe start off this year with seven weeks without a break. That hasn'tbeen done in many, many years here."
I am counting down the days until January 4th -- the day when the Democrats will take the gavel and begin immediately with the nation's business.
It only proves that Iran's sphere of influence has grown, while ours has faltered. Iran now controls what goes on in Iraq and Lebanon. They work through Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist organization that was responsible for the rocket attacks against Israel in August that killed civilians:
:
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
While President Bush diverted his attention to Iraq, he lost track of helping the new democratic government in Lebanon, he ignored the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and he turned a blind eye to Afghanistan. All three are now plagued by instability and corruption.
Whatever the Iraqi Study Group decides, they had better be thinking about the long-term scope of the entire Middle East, not just Iraq.
Recent Comments