Postmillenialism - An Eschatology of Hope by Keith A Mathison Paperback - 287 pages including indices.
The Legend of Bagger Vance by Steven Pressfield Mine is a paperback - 282 pages
BAGHDAD — The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is systematically dismissing Iraqi oversight officials, who were installed to fight corruption in Iraqi ministries by order of the American occupation administration, which had hoped to bring Western standards of accountability to the notoriously opaque and graft-ridden bureaucracy here.
The dismissals, which were confirmed by senior Iraqi and American government officials on Sunday and Monday, have come as estimates of official Iraqi corruption have soared. One Iraqi former chief investigator recently testified before Congress that $13 billion in reconstruction funds from the United States had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste by Iraqi government officials.
The moves have not been publicly announced by Mr. Maliki’s government, but word of them has begun to circulate through the layers of Iraqi bureaucracy as Parliament prepares to vote on a long-awaited security agreement.
On Sept. 10, 2002, I asked 35 questions regarding war with Iraq. The war resolution passed on Oct. 16, 2002. Now today, as some of my colleagues try to reestablish credentials regarding spending restraint, I want to call attention to my 18th question from six years ago:
“Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30-year occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to ‘build democracy’ there?”
Many scoffed at my “radical” predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole. Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong. My “radical” predictions were in fact, not “radical” enough.
I warned of a draining 30-year occupation. Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal. On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week. Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month. It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don’t stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy! Bridges in this country are crumbling, along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.
Yes, I was wrong about Iraq. I knew it would be bad. I didn’t know it would be this bad.
The American people deserve better. Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting. Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neoconservatives from before the war are not coming true. Far from it! With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK. Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost. Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people. Rather, big corporate interests are benefiting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.
No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started. But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST off-base will only lead to more foreign policy disasters. We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba, and other countries. Keep in mind – the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago sound like a cakewalk today. What leaders in the administration had predicted reads like a fairy tale. Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy “experts” explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?
Passing HR 2605 to sunset authorization for the use of force in Iraq is the first step to stopping this bloody war, and the consequent bleeding of our treasuries. Serious fiscal conservatives will support it, as will those who have been paying attention to foreign policy predictions and reality.
Take these facts into consideration and then read my question at the bottom; it concerns John McCain being willing to hold two drastically opposing positions professed on the same day, and accusing Obama of close to treason for holding one of the two same opinions as he himself puts forth. Am I wrong about this?
*Even if the surge has brought violence down, by last September, as many as 70% of Iraqis said that security had deteriorated in our “Surge” areas.
*The Administration of Iraq (P.M. Nouri al-Maliki) has demanded that we leave by 2010 – and are happy with Barack Obama’s timetable (See MSNBC video), remember!- John McCain said that if they asked us to leave, we would have to go (a blog distillation of the CFR original).
Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”
McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”
IN FACT, even the Bush Administration has now made it seem that they will #1) indeed begin withdrawal and #2) move our troops to Afghanistan (like Barack Obama said).
SOOOOO – EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE… WE ARE LEAVING, WE LEGALLY HAVE TO LEAVE, WE ETHICALLY HAVE TO LEAVE, THE AMERICANS WANT OUT, THE IRAQIS WANT US OUT…..
….but….
John McCain says, “I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. [FOX, A good Countdown Vid]“
What does he think losing is? Coming home?… What does he think he will or can do as president? He blames Obama’s plan for potentially “Losing the WAR”….RIGHT AFTER SAYING HE WILL COME HOME SOOOOOONER than Obama. It sounds like he just blamed these people for wanting us gone: 1) America, 2) the Iraqi People, 3) the Iraqi government, 4) the United Nations, 5) the Bush Administration.
But that was only after saying that HE TOO would do the same thing. What? Yes. What he said, actually makes NO sense, it only has the APPEARANCE of making John McCain a better Commander, even though he is actually saying he opposes his own plan, the one he is being FORCED to take, which will finally force him to do what America and Iraq want…to the chagrin of the Military Industrial Complex.
[Watch the video - same Countdown Video].
REMEMBER – there is no defined way of saying WHAT this war actually is. Iraq already HAS a democratic government now. We apparently don’t care about LAW or Constitution, or decency. We just care about securing the rights to more oil.
Karl Rove is not showing up to court because the White House is guiding him not to do so (“Executive Privilege” [see article]). Part of questioning is about pressure in the Justice Department for the removal of judges considered politically unfavorable to the Bush administration.
The attorney general yesterday rejected growing congressional calls for a criminal investigation of the CIA’s use of simulated drownings to extract information from its detainees, as Vice President Cheney called it a “good thing” that the CIA was able to learn what it did from those subjected to the practice.
The remarks reflected a renewed effort by the Bush administration to defend its past approval of the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding, which some lawmakers, human rights experts and international lawyers have described as illegal torture.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Justice Department lawyers concluded that the CIA’s use of waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 was legal, and therefore the department cannot investigate whether a crime had occurred.
“That would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice,” he said.
Somehow, all tied in here, are the people and the actions swirling around getting the American people to ignore when big people do really obvious bad things.
And the Red Cross says that the Geneva Convention rules are, no question, being broken – in such a serious way that an international tribunal might need to try OUR GOVERNMENT!
—-HEY! Why was it okay to invade a foreign country without legal grounds?
We didn’t have UN grounds; we didn’t have Congressional vote to declare war; we told Hans Blix to get out of Dodge so we wouldn’t bomb him even though he said there was no evidence yet to justify a war.
Why was it okay to tackle Saddam… because he was torturing people!
“But wait!” you say, “That’s what WE’RE doing!”
You’re not supposed to notice that part.
—REMEMBER!— the invasion of Iraq AND distribution of oil there was EXPECTED by the Bush Administration BEFORE he was in office the FIRST TIME… BEFORE 9/11 (which had, of course, nothing to do with Iraq).
Suskind's Book (based on Paul O'Neill's info)
From a transcript of a 60 Minutes episode which I actually saw [click to see the transcript], Paul O’Neill, George Bush’s Treasury Secretary from the beginning, reveals these things in a book (The Price of Loyalty):
And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.
As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.
“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
——————————————————————————–
Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I’m going to prevent that.”
“The thing that’s most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”
I wrote this former post [Bush Administration Actions Encourage Diplomacy, Despite Vitriol Against Diplomacy], upset that Bush and McCain have acted like it is irrational for a politician to have talks with dictators – they have used the statement as a way of attacking Barack Obama for saying that he would consider talking with Ahmadinejad. The president implied that only really bad people would do such a thing…
Apparently Nouri al-Maliki (Our Guy), Prime Minister of Iraq, has been talking with Iran.
Apparently GHW Bush talked to such fellows himself.
See the documentation by clicking the links below.
Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.”
I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194 because it is dangerously interventionist and will likely lead to more rather than less violence in the Middle East.
I have noticed that this legislation reads eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war bill, H J Res 114, which authorized the use of force.
The key resolved clause in H. Res. 1194 before us today reads:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives –
(6) urges –
(A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;
The Iraq war authorization language from 2002 is strikingly similar, as you can see here:
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to –
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
I am concerned that this kind of similarity is intentional and will inevitably result in US military action in Lebanon, or against Syria or Iran.
I am also concerned over the process of bringing this resolution to the Floor for a vote. I find it outrageous that H. Res. 1194, which calls for more risky US interventionism in the Middle East, is judged sufficiently “non-controversial” to be placed on the suspension calendar for consideration on the House Floor outside of normal order. Have we reached the point where it is no longer controversial to urge the president to use “all appropriate actions” – with the unmistakable implication that force may be used – to intervene in the domestic affairs of a foreign country?
Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating the conflict between rival political factions in Lebanon and has had some success in halting the recent violence. Currently, negotiations are taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese factions and some slow but encouraging progress is being made. Regional actors – who do have an interest in the conflict – have stepped up in attempt to diffuse the crisis and reach a peaceful solution, and press reports today suggest that a deal between the rival factions may have been reached. Yet at this delicate stage of negotiations the US House is preparing to pass a very confrontational resolution pledging strong support for one side and condemning competing factions. US threats in this resolution to use “all appropriate actions” to support one faction are in fact a strong disincentive for factions to continue peaceful negotiations and could undermine the successes thus far under Arab League moderation.
This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the other side. Wouldn’t it be better to be involved on neither side and instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict?
Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States.
This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East. It involves the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict between competing Lebanese political factions and will increase rather than decrease the chance for an increase in violence. The Lebanese should work out political disputes on their own or with the assistance of regional organizations like the Arab League. I urge my colleagues to reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194.
BAGHDAD, Feb 5 (Reuters) – American troops killed an innocent woman during a raid in Iraq on Tuesday, the U.S. military said, the day after it admitted killing nine Iraqi civilians while hunting down al Qaeda militants.
Jake Tapper is ABC News’ Senior National Correspondent based in the network’s Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
Military Donors Back Ron Paul & Obama
February 04, 2008 3:19 PM
The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign cash, looks at the 2007 money-raising and finds the following:In 2007, the 2008 presidential candidates raised $582.5 million and spent $481.2 million.
In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.
Soldiers love Ron and Barack, and lobbyists love Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the No. 1 recipient of lobbyist cash, receiving $823,000 in 2007 from the lobbying industry, which gave about $2.7 million overall.
Lawyers and law firms have contributed more than any other industry, giving $46.6 million. Democrats got 77 percent of that, with Clinton the top recipient.
Youth vote, shmooth vote, Obama has raised more from retired individuals — the second biggest donor group — than any other remaining candidate.
The securities and investment industry, in third place, gave nearly $28.7 million, 56 percent to Democrats, Clinton the top recipient.
What do you think? Have you given any money to politicians this election cycle?
- jpt
February 4, 2008
Also see my post here [click here] on the same topic, with a video of Ron Paul talking about it.
