EPUd - and important:

just received in email - hope everyone will join this campaign in some way this week:

A Week of Action for Victims of War

On the road from Baghdad Airport one year ago yesterday, Marla Ruzicka and her colleague Faiz Ali Salim were killed by a suicide bomber while advocating on behalf of victims of war. Today we reflect on their powerful voices for compassion and remember all civilians killed or injured in conflict.

To mark this anniversary, we are launching a new website as well as a week-long advocacy campaign to raise awareness about the human cost of war.

CIVIC continues to be a voice for civilians caught in the crossfire and we need your help. Starting today and continuing for four days, you will receive emails announcing the ‘daily action.’ Each action is created to inform, energize and expand support for this critical issue.

Please help us make this week a success by participating in whatever way makes sense to you and helping us spread the word.

Click http://www.civicworldwide.org/ to find or host an event in your area.

Thank you, as always, for your continued support of CIVIC.

I’ve signed on to the Chicago effort - and will circulate this to our state group. Hope others here will do the same!

post for john casper

john I don’t want to take this off topic but I resondied to a post you made regarding a statement from me on the previous thread

OT also, sorry Taylor!

But, it looks like Fitz may have some more spare time on his hands to focus on the Plot to Assassinate the Character of Joe Wilson and the career of Valerie Wilson.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....erline-411

-GSD

Taylor - I don’t think we have any right to fuss at the Iraqis for not doing what we want. We have devastated their country and the normal relations between the various segments of Iraqi society. And when they held elections but picked someone we didn’t like, Condi and strawman decended to tell them they better change their mind. I’m not saying that the players in this delay are honorable or upstanding but we have created this mess and we cannot now blame the Iraqis for not “standing up.” They owe us nothing.

Sorry to be off-topic, but as much as I love your site, I am getting real tired of looking at that annoying photo of the girl in glasses in the upper-left corner of your homepage …

Scottie’s begun taking general questions on C-SPAN 2. General questions, not-so-general answers.

Bush is already on the record as saying that getting the troops out of Iraq will be a problem for a U.S. President to-be-named-later.

Therefore, the message to Iraq - take your time, we’re gonna be here a while yet.

As much as I agree that the Iraqi gov’t needs to get it together, I can see why there is no sense of urgency on the administration’s part given that we have 14 permanent military bases and a US city/embassay in progress. W has no intentions of competely withdrawing, he’s oblivious to the harm that is being done to our troops, our treasury or the Iraqi people. He’s in no hurry. The outrage continues!

Sorry to differ, siun, but it’s not a matter of what the Iraqis owe us. It’s what our government owes the citizenry and the U.S. military now that we’re over in Iraq. Finish the job and give the Iraqis back their country, whether they want it or not.

The Democrats are demanding a deadline for setting up the government or we’re going to start pulling troops out. Bush, on the other hand, isn’t doing anything. Something needs to shift and fast or the Iraqis will be in even worse shape.

We broke it, now we need to get it at least mended. The only way to do that is through a permanent government. Remember, we’re not pushing the Iraqi people, who have voted in the legislators. We’re pushing the people who posture that they want to lead. Okay, then lead, already.

There is so much wrong with this posting that I’m going to stay out of this one as I don’t trust myself not to lose my temper very badly.

I’ll confine myself to pointing out that they had an agreement until your ambassador ordered them to find a different PM. That was only the most recent and most blatant meddling. Of course the US govt. doesn’t actually want an Iraqi government committed to ordering them out. Which the Jaffari/al-Sadr coalition is committed to doing. (To say nothing of al-Sadr al-Hakkim moves to towards raprochement.)

You’re reaping what you sowed starting with a constitution designed to produce weak coalition governments in a weak federal state.

Leave and take your poodle Blair with you. Your presence is the problem not a part of the solution.

Ms. Marsh, I’m going to kindly disagree with you on this article. Your solution is logical, but I think you’re missing a deeper, more fundamental problem.
I’ve never been convinced that the Iraquis yearn for “democracy”. Bush foisted that idea on us here stateside. Now, did those folks want to be rid of Saddam? Oh sure. But for them, it was “anything but Saddam”. Hell, a brigade of Martians could’ve invaded Iraq, captured Saddam, and those folks would’ve pretended to be all in love with “Martian Law”.
I think the failure to get a gov’t going illustrates a massive flaw with the WH assumption about post-war Iraq. And, I think no amount of pushing from America is going to get Iraq any closer to forming a gov’t we like.
So, what type of gov’t do those folks want? Hell if I know. But I think we’d be tter off getting out of their way, letting them sort thru things, and making their own decisions. Oh…that might mean a gov’t not up to snuff with Bush and Condi’s ideals….women may be 2nd rate classes….much religion may be involved in gov’t, our various American social policies thrashed over there…but that’s up to them.
Iraq is a tarbaby. But, our president has put all his fists full of reputation and pleas to the American people right smack into the middle of that tarbaby. And now we see the result.
Ghostman

The mess started with shock and awe, the CPA and now Zalmay Khalilzad. Where has any diplomacy happened? Certainly not before the illegal war. We have killed thousands and are an occupying force. Condi, Rummy drop in for a suprise visit. NOBODY is engaged. When have we listened to anyone in the region? It is our mess and our fault. Our ‘leaders’ spew on and on about freedom and democracy and how good things are and only the Iraqis and the soldiers are living the reality. I really despise the talk by the administration and other pundits who cry out that we freed them from Saddam and they ought to be grateful. Expats were the only ones begging us to ‘liberate’ Iraq by destroying Iraq– I daresay the average Iraqi does not think of this as liberation. We need to leave and pay reparations, and send this horde of ghouls to the Hague as proof of our abject apologies.

I’m not at all sure that US policy really wants Iraq to form an effective government. The Bush/Neocons say that they do, but their actions in building all those permanant bases, and the giant US “Embassy” nation-state in Baghdad strongly indicate that they intend to occupy and govern Iraq for a long, long time.

Taylor,

While I appreciate the frustration you are expressing, I do take exception to placing so much of the onus on the Iraqis. The US is for an independant Iraq as long as we can choose the leaders, maintain our military presence, build the largest embassy complex the world has ever known and continue funneling large amounts of Iraqi cash and oil revenue to American businesses until time ends.

From my reading, much of the problem is that the US does not want the democratically chosen leader–Jafaari–to lead because he has plans to ask for the removal of the US troops. So a lot of this handwringing about those “fickle, vacillating, ungrateful” Iraqis is because the US is still inserting itself into the internal politics of a nation in order to hamstring the leadership from enacting policies that the US doesn’t want enacted.

I don’t quite understand the logic…We are all for Iraqi democracy until they exersize that option..then the US wants to be the kingmaker?

I don’t think the Iraqis are taking their “own seet time”…I think that their nation is spiraling out of control and they are being battered about by a their own people, the US and British, the Iranians, domestic terrorists, former Saddam loyalists, homegrown nationalists, foreign insurgents, religious leaders and the forces of ethnic and relgious intolerance.

The Iraqis are just trying to prevent the entire nation from melting down…and they ain’t doing so hot a job. I don’t blame them for their current condition as much as I blame Bush, Blair, Cheney and the Neo-Con hegemony mongers that wanted to use Iraq as a test market for their world strategy.

-GSD

OT

Sorry to be a blogwhore but this is from Howie Klein’s (former president of Reprise Records) DownWithTyranny!:

“Ok; first: the album is beyond belief. I mean it’s so great I was jumping out of my skin. That’s the good news. The less good news is that they wouldn’t play it for me unless I agreed not to write about it for “a few days.” (Not even the label has heard it yet and they felt it would be impolite for me to go blabbing the whole story all over the world until after they get to play it for Reprise and the NY Times.) So what can I tell you before “a few days?” Not much. From the time Neil started writing the songs until he finished recording the whole incredible project: 9 days.

Every song is about… you know what (and who). Musically it is so powerful and emotionally it’s even more powerful that that!! Many tears while I sat alone with the headset on. Since I already mentioned “Let’s Impeach the President,” I’ll just say a few things about that. It’s this great rocker that ends as a gospel song and reads like an indictment. I mean Neil sounds like he’s been reading Daily KOS or FireLakeDog! Someone’s gotta get this to Henry Waxman! Neil even lays out some evidence in the form of Bush running his mouth on tape.

Will this go down as Neil’s greatest album ever? It will be a contender musically. And the impact lyrically could be profound. I’ll talk more about that when my period of musical purdah is up next week. If you’re walking down the street and someone comes up to you and offers you the opportunity to hear just one song, ask him to play “Flags of Freedom.” (Have kleenex handy.)”

Firelakedog?! Hmm, could Neil Young be reading Firedoglake?

At any rate, I thought Jane and Redd might want to know who’s (possibly) lurking here.

Hamas has just stated that the suicide bombing of an eatery in Israel “legitimate”.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....MlJVRPUCUl

Looks like the Apocalypse Clock has been moved ahead by 5 minutes.

-GSD

Rob - “…I am getting real tired of looking at that annoying photo of the girl in glasses in the upper-left corner of your homepage …”

I know what you mean. That creepy Terri Schiavo grin is just SO disturbing…maybe we can get a different picture for the ad? I’m getting a bit skeeved out by it.

mc - news like that is never off-topic. “I mean Neil sounds like he’s been reading Daily KOS or FireLakeDog!”

Taylor - I’m not at all sure we aren’t putting enormous behind-the-scenes pressure on the top functionaries of whatever it is the Iraqis are struggling to form right now. The longer we stay, the more wrong this whole thing IS.

BINGO. That’s exactly the point Ed*ard Teller.

Appreciate all the comments, including the dissenters, but the bottom line is still forming a permanent government. The Iraqi people need it to survive and it’s important to point out that Bush is failing at getting a government formed. It cannot be said enough. Believe me, I understand the causes we’re in this mess, but it’s still push come to shove time. The Iraqis need to form a government and they need to do it now.

what that Irish guy said upstairs !

not in much of a commenting mood, but i would have to agree wholeheartidly w/siun and rob, #4&5.

there have been a few excellent posts here, especially your (taylor) founding father’s post that i was very tempted to forward to some of my religeous southern relatives, but i fear they would be really turned off by the implication the site is promoting the messge in the ad. the prominence and placement of the ad makes it hard to miss.

US News & World Report:

Rummy-should he stay or should he go.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/p.....sphome.htm

-GSD

What the Iraqis do or don’t do with their country is quite literally none of our business. If there were any justice in this world, we’d be gone from there already with our tails between our legs. The only legitimate course of action now for a country that claims to believe in democracy, is to pack up and leave immediately, and to pray to whatever god or gods we believe in to forgive us our trespasses; namely, the slaughter of innocents, the destruction and theft of goods that never belonged to us, and the intolerable self-righteousness and cruelty that thinks to reduce an entire people to pawns in a geopolitical game that we mistakenly believe is ours to win or lose.

Shame on us all, and shame on Taylor Marsh for this post.

usnews poll re Rumsfeld resignation: Yes 73% - No 27%. No mention of how many votes.

Thanks, Taylor!

OT, sorry, but I wanted to get Ed*ard Teller’s (as an Alaskan) take on the announcement by Mike Gravel today for a run for the Presidency. I think he’ll stir the pot nicely!!!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Poli.....id=1850821

Well, ok Ms. Marsh….I think you’re saying “form a gov’t! Form any damn gov’t, but get one formed! Get the sewage working, lights and water working, etc etc. Just get it done!”
If the WH would just say that, we might see progress. But the WH cannot say that….they’ve lectured and lectured about a “democratic Iraq”…and in effect telling the widows and orphans that, therefore, your Dad died for a good cause. For the WH to shift now would be political suicide. It’s their own tarbaby.
Ghostman

Someone needs to light a fire under these people. If Bush and his administration can’t get it done they need to get an emissary over to Iraq immediately who can make it happen and soon. Everything depends on Iraq forming a permanent government.

If only that were true. First of all, GSD and markfromireland are right — the Bushites are actively preventing the formation of a government, because they’re making a goal-line stand against an Iran-friendly Shiite police state (as opposed to the U.S.-friendly, secular police state they were expecting).

Second, even if they do eventually succeed in forming a government, the same factional battles (not just between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, but within each group) are going to go on. The moment we failed to stop the looting after entering Baghdad, it was clear to everyone in Iraq that the rule of law was obsolete, and it’s only going to be re-imposed when one side literally outguns everyone else.

RYAN GUILTY AS CHARGED ON ALL CHARGES!

Chalk up another for Fitz!

OT, but maybe not - it depends on who gets awarded for what. The 2006 Pulitzers will be announced at 3:15 p.m. EST today at this site:

http://www.pulitzer.org/index.html

So what exactly does “light a fire under these people” look like? Given the reactions to our other emissaries, I’m not sure a new one would do much more good, and might even make things worse. (Molly Ivins’ First Rule of Holes comes to mind: Stop digging!)

What would be different about any other person sent out by the Bush admin, that would change the way that person would be received? Who would that person be?

Unless you can answer these two questions, the suggestion to “light a fire” is just words.

No!

Another Republican leader guilty of corruption?

Say it ain’t so! This is an outrage. The liberals will stop at nothing to attack the Republicans.

Jesus wasn’t as persecuted as the GOP.

Sounds like the making of a new movie:

Frog March of the Elephants

-GSD

WT @23 - I want out of Iraq as much as anyone here. The faster we can get the legislators to act the faster that can happen. There is no way we are pulling back before that happens, no matter how much we may want it. That’s reality. If the Iraqi legislators fail to form a government soon, the Democrats have already stated that we should begin drawing down troops. Kerry stated a May 15th time for beginning departure. Making the case that there is no government still, because of Bush, helps that prospect further. It’s okay to disagree with me, but again, I stand by the fact that we need a government formed in Iraq, which is the bottom line, regardless of the drama and incompetence, the utter weakness of Bush. We need to put as much pressure as possible on the Iraqi legislators to get the job done.

Well said swopa. Thank you. Exiting with steam coming from my ears as I really don’t trust myself not to resort to language I’d regret.

As I’ve repeatedly said on my other blog (not the one that’s my homepage) link “Just go”

“George W. Bush has not put near enough pressure on the Iraqis to get…”

Impersionation of GWB: “Well, my generals on the ground tell me that things are going well…uh…that we need patience…we can’t force or pressure the Iraqis. It is not right to ‘force’ anyone - except in my frat house (heh heh).

“Okay, so we have to wait for good news. See bad news comes fast — like airmail! Good news comes slow…like by boat. So when the boats come in, there will be lots of good news coming in. See!!???!”

‘a government all of their own’ — that line must have provoked lots of carcajadas besides mine

who’s kidding whom? — taylor, you’re smarter than what you posted here — we can’t undo what most americans [including leading democrats] wanted bush to do & just by being in iraq we make things worse — let’s support our troops by bringing them home now

Thanks Swopa.
When I started reading FDL (October?), I still thought the U.S. military had a peacekeeping role to play in Iraq. I don’t have that position any more. Bush has completely discredited our military.
We have tremendous leverage in the Middle East, if we would just reduce the amount of foreign oil we buy. That would reduce our foreign debt, reduce the funds that Iran has to research nuclear weapons, and would force us to become more energy independent. We also wouldn’t be losing the limbs and lives of U.S. service personell.

i’m not clear how anyone , after reading the ‘embassy’ post could still have any illusions about an intent for the US to ever leave iraq. embassys aren’t 100+ acres. it’s a town. how convenient to say we are going to leave when they form a government and then do everything in our power to prevent just that. iraqi’s are not going to be happy w/a puppet gov and thats the only one we would appreove of. i just read somewhere of allawi being installed ‘temporarily. what a fiasco. we’re lighting a fire under them alright. via negroponte, pyops, special forces. this whole media boondoggle of ‘we’ll go when you have it together’ is a charade, i’m surprised anyone has fallen for it, especially here.

There is no incentive for either the Shi’ites or the Kurds to form a government. Both of them are happily cleansing their areas of other ethnicities. Both of them are sitting on big oil reserves. It is quite likely that both of them would love Iraq to break up into parts, the Kurds especially.

Moreover, I’m not sure the Bush administration has any big incentive for Iraq to form a government. If they do form a government, it will likely be an Islamic theocracy dominated by the Shi’a. That would be not only embarrassing, but they might kick the US out of Iraq. I think Bush would rather have chaos. Chaos will allow him to pull US troops into the large permanent bases we have built in Iraq, and launch attacks from them against Iran without having to worry about the Shi’ites freaking out on the US.

The Sunni are just screwed eather way, and they know it, which removes any incentive they have to form a government that legitimizes the slaughter and ethnic cleansing.

So, while this is very much Bush’s fault, it is now totally out of his control. There really isn’t anything he can do but pull out. Unfortunately, he will “pull out” to the American bases, because he’ll fight a second Iraq war to keep us from being ejected from the country.

Taylor, may I infer that you want us to keep playing a role in Iraq because you’re delighted with how we’ve helped Iraqis take women’s rights away?

Taylor, I always enjoy your always high quality posts. I don’t always agree with you 100%, but they are well thought out and crystal clear.

Sadly, we must face the fact that there will never be a “solution” in Iraq so long as the United States is involved in any way, shape or form.

angie,

My wife and I have been LOL about Mike’s impending announcement since we found out about it Friday.

I’ve always thought of Mike Gravel as a poseur. Just before I moved to Alaska, in 1972, he read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, which was an heroic stunt, but a stunt nevertheless. I think he did some crying on TV cameras around that time too.

Soon afterward, I was living and working in Cordova, Alaska and interviewed him for the local radio station about fisheries issues. Whenever he came back there over the next three years, I’d interview him on those same themes. He kept up on the issues, but was always proposing grandiose solutions. There were exceptions, though, like his backing of the proposed “Law of the Sea Treaty”, which would have been great, but never came to be. And his early support for our pet project in Cordova - the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, which ended up being the largest cooperatively owned and operated hatchery system in the world, and helped keep Cordova alive after the Exxon Valdez spill.

The last four years Gravel was in the U.S. Senate, we lived in Whittier, where I was a municipal administrator and my wife was on the city council. Gravel came down there a few times. He seemed to be making a pass at my wife on one of his visits, which soured us both a bit on him. A few months later, I was at the Juneau airport, and Gravel was causing a huge ruckus in the terminal. He had bought a rather large painting and refused to surrender it to the crew before getting on the plane. He broke out crying, verging on hysteria. What a scene. Still etched indelibly.

The last time Gravel visited Whittier, he walked in through the 13 miles of tunnels - one of few times I’ve known somebody to do that sober. When he got into town, he declared he envisioned a huge, clear dome over the whole city.

Unfortunately, he would be a far, far, far better president than the one we’ve got.

I know I’m outnumbered on this one but I still believe the fact that the government isn’t formed can be used as a tipping and push point. A point where we can then say, as Kerry and others have said, that if the Iraqis don’t form a government we need to start withdrawing troops. They wouldn’t have voted without deadlines and I feel the same about the government. Give them a deadline and if they don’t get it done we’ll leave. Talking about what happened with the looting doesn’t get us out of Iraq. Putting a deadline for the Iraqi legislators to form a permanent government could, I believe. We’ll just have to disagree on this one.

one more thing. let’s play what if. what if everything had gone swimmingly and the war had ended @ mission accomplished? who here believes we would have packed up and come home without building all those permanent bases and that town in baghdad? raise your hand. time, the neocons needed time, and we sure are getting it.

what markfromireland (#10) said

Not to put too fine a point on it: as Iraqi MP’s actually are on the ground in Baghdad, I imagine they quite understand the urgency. “Lighting a fire under them” is probably more literal than figurative already.

Though I do think the incredible slowness in forming a government is per se a clear indication of what a mess we’ve wrought. The situation is so bad that even in the midst of the obvious urgency, people on the ground are paralyzed by a lack of good (or even acceptable) options.

Bob Adams @ 10:08 am (#17) [and Rob] - I’m using Firefox and don’t see any photos of creepy girls, with or without glasses. Checking the adblock list shows quite a few images.

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

This is also based on the false premise:

“If they have a government, things will get better.”

We have seen this hopeful projection from the very beginning.

*Remove Saddam, Iraq will be free and happy.

*Kill Udai and Qusay and the insurgency will end.

*Capture Saddam and the insurgency will end.

*Hold elections and the insurgecy will end.

*Hold more elections and the insurgency will end.

*Hold more elections still, and the insurgency will end.

*Pick a leader and the insurgency will end.

*Pick a leader that we agree with and the insurgency will end.

*Kill all 987 of Al Qaeda number 2 and the insurgency will end.

-GSD

I think it’s quite possible that the Iraqis with the best potential to lead their country are deliberately holding back so as not to be associated with their American oppressors if and when the Occupation ever ends.

I also firmly believe that the only way Iraq can possibly end up with a truly representative form of government will be AFTER we are gone and they have, one way or another, duked it out among themselves.

As far as womens’ rights? Like Palestine, it was a pretty well-educated, secular place — and like Palestine, it will become ever more fundamentalist as the Occupation brutally grinds on.

Oh, and Resistance to an illegal occupation, btw, is legal under International Law: Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry are not terrorists, they are American heroes.

GSD, I really like your 14, thanks.

“do nothing and everything will be done” -chinese proverb

it’s like a hybrid game that combines russian roulette and chicken. any group of iraqis that form a “government” is signing it’s collective death warrant. they will be hunted down like dogs and tortured, shot, decapitated, blown up, or some combination of the above. oh, and i forgot, pissed on and set on fire.

so, taylor, does that clear up why things keep getting postponed? i.e., to do otherwise is unwise? insane? bad for one’s health and well-being? foolish?

the descent into ever worsening chaos and horror will not stop. the bush administration has fixed the game where the iraqis can’t win. but the cruel joke has evolved now to the point where the u.s. can’t “win” either. no, matter, what, we, do.

i agreed with john murtha when he layed out his plan to end our presence in iraq. at least it was honest and straightforward.

iraq and the iraqis are screwed. time for us to stop whistling past the graveyard and get our people out of there. buildings are just concrete and steel. they can be abandoned in good conscience. not so the human lives that keep being lost.

doesn’t the US owe Iraq and its people, like, well, reparations or something?

I dunno — I think the worst is yet to come in Iraq, and there is nothing anyone can co about it. George Bush can screw things up, but he can’t make them better. Implementing some variation of the Murtha/Kerry programs is the best option for the USA, letting Iraqis sort out their own problems.

Like someone (Sy Hersh? Larry Johnson?) said when Bush invaded: “We’re fucked.”

Taylor, I am very, very troubled by your post. It sounds a great deal like blaming the victim.

I believe that a lack of government in Iraq suits the Americans just fine, and the only government they would accept would be puppet regime of some kind. I would not be at all surprised if the Americans were sabotaging the process of forming a government. And this sentence is nothing short of perverse:

“George W. Bush has not put near enough pressure on the Iraqis to get on with doing what the Iraqi people risked their lives to create, a government all of their own in Iraq.”

This was an invasion, Taylor, not a coup. You make it sound like this was was some sort of voluntary nation-building activity entered into by the the Iraqis. Don’t you think Bush has put quite enough pressurs on the Iraqis? You people have created absolute chaos in Iraq, and now it’s their fault that they don’t have a government? When bare survival is a constant concern? How can they “get their act together” as you so charmingly phrased it, when basic services are lacking, when families have been uprooted and destroyed, lives lost, bodies maimed, and day-to-day survival is an issue? And you’re concerned about YOUR blood and treasure?

This is not they kind of comment I usually write here, but your US-centric view of this is breathtaking. This type of attitude is why so many people hate your country.

What possible impetus do they have to form said govt when we don’t respect the one they elected? We continue to undermine and not work with other properly and duly elected governments in the region– think Hamas, Ahmedinajad. We are ok with King Karzai cause we installed him. Their is no security in that country. How can you even form a government under occupation? We must leave. The entire ‘policy’ in the region is a disaster.

Thanks ET for your detailed take on Mike Gravel– it should be a good stirring of the pot!

OT
Ryan found guilty on all counts and faces up to 20 years for the racketering charge, the most serious.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld.....362131.htm

Ms. Marsh, a deadline is fine. I’ve got no problem with that…and I like Kerry’s proposal. I think….you’re applying too much “common sense and logic” towards solving the problem, without looking at it thru the WH lens. The WH, for a host of reasons, cannot apply your simple and straight-forward solution. They are stuck.
Now, I DO AGREE that the Dems ought to take a louder stand on the Kerry idea…or any idea which urges strong talk. The dems can make this a winning issue.
A dark thought: what if….what if the Iraquis suddenly got more politically adept, and all factions began announcing loudly and stridently that they’re ready to get the gov’t going…as soon as America vacates their lands! Boy oh boy, what a pickle that puts the WH in.
Ghostman

Fitz news:
Ryan found guilty of all charges, faces up to 20 years on most serious count
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12356536/

there, not their. grr.

I find this article to be disturbingly ahistorical. The notion on display here is that the civil war is caused by, or at least perpetuated by the failure of the Iraqi’s to form a government. The notion is that those feckless Iraqi’s are lollygagging around while the US spends blood and treasure.

The reality on the ground is much different. Iraqi politicans and leaders risk their lives to assassination every day. Every trip, every meeting may be their last. It defies credibility to suggest that they’re feckless or irresponsible. They are a group who are facing appalling conditions on every front.

Moreover, its questionable what, if anything, they can do, except to put an Arab face on an American occupation. All of the decision making power, the transitional laws, pretty much every significant decision in the country is being made by the US. So what’s the point? A ‘unity’ government under American occupation may have no more credibility than the Vichy regime. More to the point, they’ve got no power to affect anything, and the Iraqi’s know it.

And the article ignores the role of the United States in helping to create and perpetuate the civil war and to manipulate elections and interfere with the Iraqi’s political process. The present impasse is largely one of American manufacture.

So let’s not blame the Iraqi’s. The meme of Iraqi ingratitude stands as remarkably offensive.

one more thought:

an irony:

saddam tortured. we torture.
saddam built palaces in honor of himself.
grandiose architectural monuments.
we build grandiose architectural monuments.
one thing remains to be done:
a large statue of george w. bush on the spot where saddam’s statue was toppled.

have a nice day!

In light of all that has happened how can this expectation of “legitimate government formation”……be seriously debated.

Kinda like washing your car in the middle of a dusty shit storm….

it will never turn out right.

The Bush Administration is out of options. The only option open to this Adminstration is a war in Iran.

We lost Iraq the day we handed power to the Dawa party. Here’s a rundown of the history of our sorry involvement. Enjoy the trip down memory lane and let me know what you think.

What Swopa said at #27. I think you may be listening what the US is saying instead of watching what they’re doing, and at risk of piling on I think I have a helpful metaphor.

What we’re actually doing is stomping on the gas while also stomping on the brakes. We want the front of the car (forming a government) to move, but we want the back of the car (US influence/permanent presence) to stay where it is.

It doesn’t work that way. We are already applying all the pressure we can. The problem is that we’re applying it in two conflicting ways. Condi et al keep saying that we want the Iraqis to form a government, but at the same time, they keep trying to divide-and-conquer the UIA coalition, so that Jaafari doesn’t get the PM post.

It ain’t gonna work. Nothing’s gonna work till we have somebody else in charge.

Like someone (Sy Hersh? Larry Johnson?) said when Bush invaded: “We’re fucked.â€

That was Joe Wilson, in an interview with Josh Marshall at TPM in Sept. ‘03 or thereabouts. Though others may have expressed the same sentiment. :)

… as Kerry and others have said, that if the Iraqis don’t form a government we need to start withdrawing troops. They wouldn’t have voted without deadlines and I feel the same about the government. Give them a deadline and if they don’t get it done we’ll leave.

As I wrote at Needlenose at the time of Kerry’s NYT editorial, he’s totally wrong in thinking a deadline will help.

You tell them U.S. troops are leaving, and the thugs masquerading as Iraqi politicians will be backed further in a corner and be even less reluctant to compromise — because priority #1 will be preparing to fight it out after we’ve gone.

Which, in fact, is what they’ve been doing for the past couple of years anyway. Which is why there’s no “unity” for a national government to promote.

I think we have a classic “mexican standoff.”

The govt they can put together has Jaffera as prime minister who we loathe.

Fine, we don’t want him, we get nothing.

NO SOUP FOR YOU, GEORGE BUSH.

I also agree that they know we’re not going anywhere so why take charge of this mess.

The “floor” is not Iraq. Sunni Shi’a acrimony is a fact throughout the Middle East, so is the Kurdish minority. A civil war in Iraq could spread throughout the region, which is why everyone who knew something about the Middle East (except the neocons) told Bush/Cheney not to invade in the first place.
A general increase in hostilities could push the price of oil over $100 a barrel.
This pushes the discussion back to Dubai. Bush supports Dubai unequivocally because it is across the Straits of Hormuz from Iran. 25% of the world’s oil flows through that two-mile-wide, two-way channel that is about 100 meters deep. Sink a couple of oil tankers in that channel and the price of oil goes a lot higher than $100/barrel, until they are removed.

If Bush and his administration can’t get it done they need to get an emissary over to Iraq immediately who can make it happen and soon.

Forming an independent government in Iraq, especially one with any claim to power that would enable Iraq to reassert dominion over itself is not an agenda item with traction for some of the parties concerned…including the Bush administration, IMO.

This is not to say that lip service won’t continue to be paid in abundance for media consumption of the concept domestically, of course…as the public’s conditioned response to the 1-2 of soothing propaganda and real-time inaction and neglect is part of the playbook for the fictively enhanced ‘democracy lite’ being foisted as a cloudy pretense of regency, created to provide a plausible cover for the turmoil necessary to continue furtive strategic repositioning.

Until U.S. policy is seen to change fundamentally (with proactive troop drawdown/redeployment and investigation of administration misdeeds, for example), there will be little ‘motivation’ on the part of the varied strata of Iraqi interests to form a working coalition apart from U.S. support…And, in fact, the internal and external elements dedicated to exploiting the chaos inherent in the situation will short-circuit that motivation at every opportunity.

A federal jury convicted former Gov. George Ryan today on all charges that as secretary of state he steered state business to cronies in return for vacations, gifts and other benefits for himself and his family.
SNIP

The story doesn’t mention what party he belongs to. Free flag pin to anyone who wants to guess…..

Sorry for the OT: Here’s the rest:

Ryan, 72, faces up to 20 years in prison for racketeering conspiracy, the most serious of the charges in the 22-count indictment.

The jury found him guilty on all charges.

Ryan was accused of steering big-money state contracts and leases, including a $25 million IBM computer deal, to his friends and political insiders.

In return, Ryan was rewarded with annual winter vacations in Jamaica, stays in Cancun and Palm Springs and gifts ranging from a golf bag to $145,000 in loans to his brother’s business, prosecutors said.

Swopa, if you have the time or the incliniation, I am interested in your take on Hamas and Israel.

Radish, we can’t wait until someone else is in charge. And, Swopa, a deadline won’t stop the violence, of course not. But it’s a way to force a break. Regardless of the criticism and disagreements, which I can take, no problem, we still need a government, violence and all. No it won’t stop it. But we owe it to the Iraqi people to push the Iraqi elite, the legislators now in power, to get a government in place, whatever it looks like.

Several comments well said, and to the real point. Being handed a flaming sack of shiite, sunni and kurd is not an incentive that would motivate anyone…

Nice job, FITZ! George Ryan was found guilty.

jafaari was going to ask the US to leave and we nixed him because of that. besides, what about the upcoming ‘pacification ‘ of bagdad? the next falluja? i’ll find the link, the news came out last week. they are going to isolate all the different areas(beginning w/sunni’s) and do a ’sweep’. it’s all planned out. i’ll go find link somewhere.

Ryan=Republican

-GSD

taylor, ‘we’ don’t need a government in iraq, they do.

Shargash - Sounds about right. Bush is buying time - the Embassy needs to be completed and fortified before troops are “pulled out”. We’re there to protect the oil supply, not the Iraqi people’s freedom to choose their system of governance. And chronic low-grade chaos in Iraq will keep any faction from gaining enough power to wrestle control of the oil away from US.
I really would like to see them form a strong government of their own - but that’s not what Bush wants, and that’s why he’s not applying effective or meaningful pressure on the Iraqis to do so.

Mash 61

Correct you are.

ON TOPIC: GREAT JOB FOR $6,000 PER HOUR SALARY.

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits.

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand.

While I agree with the overall implication of your post, I think you’ve missed the mark somewhat in getting there. In particular, this did not ring true to me:

Right now, the Iraqis don’t see a win in forming a government, because we’ll be there as long as they need us, regardless of how long it drags out. So, the Iraqis are taking their own sweet time.

I think the important point is not that they’re “taking their time,” it’s that by staying indefinitely, we’ve given them no incentive to compromise.

Oil Rises to $70 a Barrel in New York on Iran Supply Concern

April 17 (Bloomberg) — Crude oil rose, touching $70 a barrel in New York for the first time since Hurricane Katrina, on concern the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program may disrupt shipments.

With Ryan down, maybe we’ll soo some Fitz action.

Swopa #63 –

Do you see anything that can induce positive developments? Or are we at the point of Murtha style slo-mo cut and run?

George W. Bush Iraq Statue Committe Recommendations:

I propose a giant lady liberty statue but half sunk in a giant pool of oil as in the Planet of the Apes closing scene…Instead of the face of lady liberty, the face of George W. Bush only semi morphed into a chimp face…Also, instead of the lady liberty crown, George the Persecuted can wear a crown of thorns. Also, the torch should not work, it should only cast shadows, not light.

-GSD

Whos moderating this thread?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.....97,00.html

here it is london times

“US plots ‘new liberation of Baghdad’

THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad†to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed.

Pacifying the lawless capital is regarded as essential to establishing the authority of the incoming government and preparing for a significant withdrawal of American troop

Strategic and tactical plans are being laid by US commanders in Iraq and at the US army base in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, under Lieutenant- General David Petraeus. He is regarded as an innovative officer and was formerly responsible for training Iraqi troops.

Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.

Helicopters suitable for urban warfare, such as the manoeuvrable AH-6 “Little Birds†used by the marines and special forces and armed with rocket launchers and machineguns, are likely to complement the ground attack. ”

oh, that out to really help the new iraqi gov. fallujah all over

I see the root of the problem differently.

The Shiite parties are causing the impasse because they effectively benefit from it. They have the U.S. military acting as their personal bully-boy in their turf war with the Sunnis.

There already is a civil war, and the U.S. is fighting with the Shiite side against the Sunni side, by virtue of the fact that the puppet governemnt is Shiite dominated.

Where, in this scenario, is the incentive for SCIRI, DAWA, and Muqtada to do anything different from what they are doing now — standing back as the Sunnis and the occupier bloody each other?

They voted. They HAVE a gov’t, whether they choose to use it or not.

Time to go. Now.

But, as we see w/bases and that holy horror of an ‘embassy’, we’re goin’ nowhere fast.

Bush has said it’ll be up to FUTURE presidents to get out…

Ya kinda hafta wanna. And we don’t.

Everyone better get used to it: War IS Peace. Freedom IS Slavery. Ignorance IS Strength.

Yep. ‘We’re FUCKED.’

I don’t have time to read through all comments, but stopped at markefromireland #10: Mark is correct, Bush has been meddling in choice of Iraqi PM, though I have never seen this reported in corrupt US corporate media at all. The corporate media have uniformly and falsely advertised it as purely a problem of Iraqi compromise. We’ll never know whether original deal would have gone through, but it is a fact that Bush demanded a change in PM and killed the prospective Iraqi government deal several weeks ago. The stories about this being a 100% Iraqi issue are lies and disinformation, (or, it could be called incomplete reporting, I guess, to put lipstick on a pig).

I think BushCo doesn’t really mind the delay at all. I have become so cynical that I think BushCo thinks it can handle low level civil anarchy/war, and if US losses are kept down to 1 or 2 a day, can hang in there. BushCo needs Iraqi disorder to justify keeping their brand new giant airbases there.

In fact, some sources have reported that real reason BushCo didn’t want Jafaari was that Jafaari was planning a fast track for US withdrawal. BushCo’s interference had more to do with that than concern for Iraqi consensus.

Bush will declare “Mission Accomplished, Again”

Meanwhile, today in the most dangerous city in the world…or the home of chirping birds and nice falafel stands if you watch Fox News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....hdA–

Also, if anyone wants to check out the Log Cabin Republican site go ahead. First go to ThinkProgress and read the new Bushco mandate that all gays better be celibate. Needless to say, I let the folks at Log Cabin know that they are collaborating in their own demise if they continue to support the party of Michael Savage, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

-GSD

Fitz has let us down completely:

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/F.....inchey.pdf
One page pdf linked at Rep. Hinchey’s site. Why did it take Fitz SIX MONTHS to offer his REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE THE NIGER FORGERIES as requested by Rep. Hinchey and 39 other Democrats?

Looks to me as if the Iraqis are following the same pattern they followed with the constitution.

They met and tried to resolve differences- they couldn’t. Eventually Clusterfuck blustered and threatened them- so they threw some shit against the wall and called it a constitution. Within days they were talking about the need to change it.

Now we have em meeting and arguing- and again they don’t make progress- so again they will probably be led by the scruffs of their necks to do SOMETHING- and it will be a disaster again.

More talk doesn’t necessarily bridge differences or lead to a more acceptable solution. The problem is that there IS NO ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION.

I agree with Taylor Marsh that there needs to be an Iraqi government asap. There is the question of whether it is in the interests of Bushco to have a true independent Iraqi government or not. I, and I think several other commenters, believe signs point to no. BushCo wants a puppte govt. and is willing to live with choas until that can be achieved.

You write as if getting a government approved in Iraq will fix things. It won’t. Any government that can be named will be negotiated by giving the various factions little pieces of the government, and those pieces of the government (the Interior ministry; provincial governments, the army) will just be used by the various factions to fight each other while the former exiles move as much loot as they can out of the country, to support them when they go back into exile.

New poll from Gallup- Clusterfuck at 36% JAR- congress at 25% or so as is the “right track/ wrong track number.

Pitiful.

Nice post, Taylor. Too rarely does a poster set up an argument that all the FDL’ers can jump on and gleefully demolish. I will admit that I read the post twice, just to confirm my initial reation. Usually, I find myself nodding my head in agreement at FDL. A nice change of pace to be able to disagree, in a civilized and restrained manner.

Goddamn ingrate Iraqis, you’d think they’d have some consideration for us. We go to all the trouble of blowing their country up and then they have the gall to dawdle on something as easy as setting up a working government in the midst of a Civil War. You’d almost think they DIDN’T want us to pull our troops out and leave them to fight the insurgents on their own!

Christ, we try so hard to be so good. Sometimes I think these people are doing this just to spite us…

“The World will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation.”

Albert Einstein.

Podkopayeva @ 90

I do not think Fitz let us down– he is focused on the leak from the WH; the Niger forgeries are part of the story and up to Congress to investigate imho– specifically the Senate Intelligence Committee a la phase 2. If and when further indictments are handed down (please, please, please) then I think the whole pack of lies will be unraveled and things will move forward quickly. Fitz has to focus on the the outing of Valerie Plame… for now. There is a reason he said no 6 mos later after the request was made…

Ghostman @ 10:57 am (#55) - A dark thought: what if….what if the Iraquis suddenly got more politically adept, and all factions began announcing loudly and stridently that they’re ready to get the gov’t going…as soon as America vacates their lands! Boy oh boy, what a pickle that puts the WH in.

I think the Iraqis are fairly adept at politics, at least as it’s practiced in their own country. They might need some tutoring in international politics, but who doesn’t?

Unfortunately, this government, whatever form it takes, isn’t going to be able to stand on its own. Neither the Iraqi army nor its police seem to be up to the task of providing security. Their ministries (departments in U.S. government-speak) are riddled with corruption and thuggery. The army isn’t equipped properly, and is probably riddled with militia members. The police seem to be little more than special branches of the militias, and corrupt as well. If I were contemplating having to take over that government, I’d be applying for exile right now.

My crystal ball says that the most likely option is that, in the end, we end up with another Saddam running the country. He might not be secular, but he’ll be the meanest, smartest SOB left after the government we installed has fallen. There only appear to be two ways to keep Iraq together in its current form - either find a way to make every faction happy, or use force. We’ve tried the former and it hasn’t worked. It would probably take a generation to accomplish, and I’m quite sure none of us want it to take that long.

This probably explains the Bush Administration’s reluctance to leave. They know this is what’s bound to happen, and they want it to happen on someone else’s watch.

We can start at the beginning of this debacle and point out numerous ways in which we might have prevented things from getting to where they are today, but, with “do-overs†not a possibility, we have to proceed from where we are right now.

So, where are we? Well, under pressure of a deadline, Iraq has elected a number of people, who have been unable to come to agreement on the formation of an actual government. There is widespread violence, basic services are still widely unavailable or below pre-war levels, and billions of dollars, and thousands of lives have been lost. The deaths continue to mount, and the tab continues to increase. It’s hard to make the argument that either they or we are better off for having undertaken this war. Unless you’re Halliburton or KBR, of course.

If you’ve never lived under an actual representative government, who teaches you how to form one? Do you trust the forces that took down the dictator under whose thumb you used to live? Do you trust that the advice of the people who are building permanent bases in your country is truly in your interest? If you are one of the elected representatives, how do you answer those you represent when they ask who, exactly, gave permission to the occupying force to erect permanent military bases in your country?

There are no good answers here for Iraq, or for us. After 4 months, it is clear that without additional and meaningful pressure, it’ll be a “few days†here and a “few days†there, and before you know it, it will be the one-year anniversary of the elections, there will still be no government, and we will be up over 3,000 dead in Iraq. But where does credible and meaningful pressure come from when it’s clear that we plan to have a presence in Iraq for decades? If it were possible to keep it under wraps – and I’m not sure it is - we should be giving Iraq a date by which they must have a government, or we’re simply going to pronounce that the country is in a civil war, and inform them that such a judgment will mean the end of our engagement. The only problem with this is that no one believes we will abandon those permanent military bases.

I don’t believe for one minute that there is any credible and meaningful pressure being applied, because those permanent bases will be utilized in any action against Iran. The current situation will go on and on until those bases are ready, and by then – after another round of manipulated and hyped intelligence, which the usual media outlets will be complicit in selling as truth - we will be engaged in Phase Two of the Worst Plan Ever.

No good answers, which is what you get when your planning is as bereft of foresight as Bush’s is.

Much frustration and many good comments. We are at day 123 without the formation of a permanent government. The reason for this isn’t an act of God or nature. It’s not because the Iraqis have been really, really trying and it hasn’t worked. It’s because it doesn’t serve anyone’s interests sufficiently. All sides have found they can pursue their agendas better with the present weak, temporary government. I agree with mfi in that the culprit for this state of affairs is the Iraqi constitution and the promotion of regional/sectarian parties over national ones.

For our part, we are continuing the neocon program of bases which the thought is ongoing political instability will allow us to sell to any future Iraqi government. Similarly, withdrawal of most ground forces and concomitant decrease in casualty rates will make an indefinite stay of remaining US forces acceptable to the American electorate.

Violence is still confined to Baghdad, the center, and West of the country. The Kurdish North is relatively peaceful as is the largely Shia South.

The Kurds are sitting pretty. They have de facto autonomy and a weak central government, outside of independence this is about as good as they could hope for. It is also why they are not rushing to join a stronger central government. The only thing that might entice them into government is Kirkuk. Independence is a goal but remains problematic. Even if Iraq split up an independent Kurdish area might invite a Turkish invitation.

The Shia would like a stronger central government which they control. Time and numbers they think are on their side and they don’t feel they need to trade away these advantages to either Kurds (with Turkey breathing down their necks) or Sunni. Curiously, violence around Baghdad strengthens one of Jaafari’s main backers Muqtada al Sadr and makes him a bigger player in the capital and in the country.

As has been discussed at Swopa’s, replacing Jaafari is not going to change the underlying problems of conflicting programs. It could fracture the Shia alliance. This would be a plus from the current American perspective since it would weaken al Sadr and the Iranian connections. It is one of the reasons that so far the Shia alliance has held firm (with some grumbling).

The Sunnis have the insurgency but no real political weight and are as so many have noted: screwed.

I would agree with Taylor that a deadline would be a great thing for us. Not that I believe it would be sincere or acted upon but if it is the fig leaf we need to leave then I say I’m all for it. It won’t happen because the Bush Administration as I pointed out above not hasn’t given up on its neocon agenda and is still looking to stay not leave.

Wesgpc, there isn’t going to be an independent government in Iraq, whether you’re talking American interests being served or Iran’s. But like you stated, there still needs to be a government put in place.

And Eclaire, we did disagree and I enjoyed it. But I don’t think my argument has been “demolished” at all. We still need an Iraqi government. Bush still needs to push to get one, regardless of the fact that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place; that the Iraqis didn’t ask for us to invade and are the vitims in all this; and that Bush and Rummy’s incompetence have led us to this sad state of affairs; and even though a government won’t stop the violence. As my post states, in the end, we still need an Iraqi government, whatever fresh hell it may bring and Bush needs to get one in place, set a deadline as the Democrats suggest, and if it isn’t met, get the hell out.

I remember reading news reports that this whole independent self governing thing for Iraq is kind of last minute kluge anyway. Cheney and his whizz-kids had planned for Chalabi to be a Saddam-lite, or a new Shah or Iraq. When things fell apart, Chalabi’s force du fighting frappe disintigrated (’cause there wasn’t much too it anyway), Cheney blamed it on Powell. And BushCo had to figure a way to slap together some kind of puppet government that looked like the real autonomous version from a distance (the critical distance being the US, until public attention wandered because everything would be under control and going so well soon). I read these things in reports of wild left wing rags like Newsweek, CSM, NYT, BBC, etc.

I am glad all media is not totally corrupt. TV and radio headline news departments seem more and more like disinformation agencies every day though, and they are the ones who have been broadcasting misleading reports about recent PM problem.

From Riverbend:

They have been foolishly trying to get a government together since they first announced the election results. And we’ve been patiently waiting. It’s like being under the threat of punishment for weeks and weeks at a time and finally just wanting to have the punishment over with.

I don’t think anyone believes they’re going to make any improvements or major changes, we’re just tired of waiting for the final formation. People need to know who’ll be in power because they want to know who to pay bribes to or get a ‘tazkiya’ from when they need something done. We need to know which religious party to go to when the Interior Ministry goons take away a relative.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Whatever fresh hell indeed.

Taylor, I’m commenting before reading other remarks, so sorry if someone else mentioned this. There is an article called Grand Theft Babylon at antiwar.com that might interest you on this issue.

Very interesting, thanks, Old Sow. Here’s the link for anyone interested:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/be.....cleid=8862

GSD said: “I don’t think the Iraqis are taking their “own seet timeâ€â€¦I think that their nation is spiraling out of control and they are being battered about by a their own people, the US and British, the Iranians, domestic terrorists, former Saddam loyalists, homegrown nationalists, foreign insurgents, religious leaders and the forces of ethnic and relgious intolerance.”

Exactly GSD, this and much worse. Chalk me up with markfromireland and Swopa, etc. I too find this post most disturbing. We have no right to demand a damn thing of the Iraqis. They politic, negotiate, and barter in a completely different way than the West and no amount of imperial ‘threats’ are going to make a damn difference. Our immoral, illegal, occupation makes it worse for every single second we are there.

ROB–early comment this thread. I HATE looking at that girl too.

had to pause … at the office …

Taylor - thanks for the reply. I’m going to keep going here since I really respect your posts but in this one I see an underlying assumption that affects so much of the discussion on the democratic side - so I’m using your post as a scapegoat as it were - but not you.

You wrote:
“we need a government formed in Iraq, which is the bottom line, regardless of the drama and incompetence, the utter weakness of Bush. We need to put as much pressure as possible on the Iraqi legislators to get the job done.” (bold is mine)

Until we face the absolute, devastating, horror filled reality of what we - our government, in our name, with our dollars and our children - have done to Iraq, we will never have peace. Iraq may have had a vile dictator, etc (one we supported and help to power and arm) but Iraq did not attack us. We attacked Iraq, we began attacking with the persistent bombing and sanctions (killing between 200,000 and 500,000 innocent Iraqi children acc to the UN) under Clinton and W1. We destroyed the infrastructure, the cultural treasures, the civic and social fabric of Iraq. We have murdered or caused the murder of as many as 300,000 Iraqis (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000381.php#more and then go to MFIs sites and look more closely, again, look with your eyes completely open and not hiding).

Even with this complete chaos we have created, the Iraqi people have stuggled to create a political form for their future. We imposed a bad constitution and set time tables and structures as if the Iraqis, of an ancient and learned culture, could not do anything without “our” help. The Iraqis cooperated, voted, got their purple fingers - and completed the election process. The outcome though was not precisely what WE wanted - as Sidney Blumenthal wrote of the Condoleeza Rice visit: Then she and Straw took a magic carpet to Baghdad to try to overthrow Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari in favour of a more pliable character.(http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/04/06/rice_iraq/).

And then we complain that the Iraqis are not getting on with it, damnit! After all, our Democratic representatives need some cover for asking if the troops can come home - so c’mon guys, pick a new government and let us leave - pretending that we “liberated” Iraq (even if we weren’t for it)- see, they even have a democratically elected figurehead! pretending that we will ever leave (and please ignore the embassy and bases, they mean nothing at all … really) - pretending that we are not vicious colonialists out to steal Iraq’s oil.

Don’t make us face up to the murder,torture and rape of a civilization in our name. Don’t make us face the fact that our democratic politicians keep going along even with all the evidence and with a majority opposed to the war. Don’t make us face up to our own guilt and shame.

It’s so much nicer to pretend that even tho W is stupid and evil and we don’t like him, we’re really nice and well meaning and we can fix it … really, we’ve got the box of bandaids right here. After all we’re not agressors, we’re not oppressors - we’re american and certainly not like those old colonial powers!

The Iraqi people have been pushed into the abyss by our actions - and goddess knows how or when they will be able to climb back out. But I don’t think that we, the bullies who beat them bloody and shoved them off the edge and into that abyss, have any right to now insist they climb faster so we can pretend we were just improving their lives with a new cardio workout regime.

Christopher Hitchens weighs in again on the Wilson kerfuffle http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/fr/rss/

Well said siun, well said!

*ilson46201 @ 12:51 pm (#110) - Wilson said he found no evidence that the Iraqis had succeeded in buying yellowcake from Iraq. Nothing Hitchens wrote contradicted that story. He could have made the actual point he had to make in about three paragraphs if he hadn’t felt the need to assassinate Wilson’s character.

It’s a shame Hitchens can’t use the entirety of his mind when writing a story, instead of just his ego.

One more time, with feeling, siun. Assuming for the sake of argument that what you said is true, but knowing Democrats aren’t going to go for immediate withdrawal in an election year. We still need an Iraqi government or a deadline for them to form one. If they don’t make it, we begin withdrawing. That should be the Democratic Party stance, as Kerry has offered.

In the end, we all know this war was WRONG. I was on radio before the Senate vote and I ranted against this war. But we actually do the Iraqis no favors by being more patient with the people they elected. We need a government NOW.

If Iraqis were asked the question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” — I’d bet that 60-70% would say they were better off four years ago. Which means, most Iraqis (the Kurds excepted) would feel they were better off under Saddam.

Not that anyone wants Saddam back — something like 90% want him dead — but it a sad fact that the Bush Administration has destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, stability, and social order — and brought civil war and chaos in it’s place.

Yes, Iraq needs a functioning government — just like the USA needs sane leadership, and people in Hell need ice water.

oil and power… that’s what’s at stake and don’t expect anyone involved to give these up. not for peace, not for a unified gov’t and not for political points. to the last standing in this mess goes oil riches and power over an entire nation. this is what iraq is about for everyone involved…

Taylor - I’m not questioning your oppositioin to the war at all - at all. What I am questioning is the position that the Iraqis need to do anything at all so that the Democrats have cover to do what is right. Maybe that is the realpolitik of this but it is wrong.

It is also a problem logically -
1- Kerry says “form a government or we’ll leave starting May 15.”
2- The Iraqi’s want us to leave.
QED: So why form a government?

and if the Iraqi’s do as you want we get:
1- Kerry says “form a government or we’ll leave starting May 15.”
2- Iraqi’s form a government.
QED - we stay???

How about:
1 The Iraqi’s want us to leave.
2 We leave.

Suin - Have you seen the long-term bases I’ve been writing about for weeks? We’re staying as long as the Republicans are in power. The only hope we have of getting out is if we turn over Congress in 2006. Even then, I wonder if Democrats have the stones to dismantle the bases and truly get out of Iraq. It’s a major concern.

“*WE* need a government in Iraq…” Says it all don’t it?

This is one of those unconscious admissions that betrays an entire underlying theme. “We” need a government in Iraq. Not the Iraqi’s, but “We”. America needs a government in Iraq, or we’ll threaten to leave. We are not talking about what the AIraqi’s need, which is a very long list. We’re talkingabout the American agenda.

This unconscious admission clarifies the real issues dramatically. When “we” have a government in Iraq, all the problems will go away.

What problems can a government in Iraq solve for America? They can legitimize US presence, send Iraqi boys to die in place of Americans, they can somehow defuse the civil war or at least take responsibility for it, they can adopt and implement Washington’s policies regarding oil, including its sale, management and privatization, they can privatize state industries, throw open the economy to foreign investment and implement all those Neocon ‘reforms’. Of course, when we say ‘we’ need a government, we want one that is obedient to American interests rather than Iraqi interests.

Essentially, we want a brown face on this little bit of our Empire, so the natives can pretend its still their country, while we pull all the strings.

The failure of the Iraqi democratic process to produce a result that is satisfactory to us, is simply ingratitude.

Anyway, about that Civil War, sort of reminds you of Central America in the 80’s doesn’t it? What with death squads operating in police and paramilitary, often doing their stuff in uniform, mass disappearances, bodies showing up tortured to death, targeting of civilians in particular trades like teachers, union leaders, religious leaders, health care professionals, etc….

Weren’t American military leaders talking about the El Salvador option as a serious military/anti-insurgent tactic? Whatever happened to that talk. It just sort of died away, a few months before the civil war started getting nasty…

And remember those two British Special forces guys who got caught in Basra? Remember how they were armed to the teeth with an arsenal, while disguised in wigs and native clothing? Remember how they murdered a police officer while trying to avoid capture? I wonder what they were doing? I wonder about how whatever they were doing was so sensitive, that the British mounted a major military assault in broad daylight to get them out? What sort of secrets would provoke that kind of insane over the top reaction???

And here’s an interesting tidbit…. John Negroponte, Reagan’s point man for the genocidal wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala that killed upwards of half a million people, got sent to Iraq…. And he left, just as this “El Salvador-style” civil war was picking up steam.

Not that I’m making suggestions, no sir. You won’d here anything paranoid coming out of me. And rude. I wouldn’t want to be rude. I’m just making a few observations, don’t mind me, nothing to see here, certainly there are no conclusions to be drawn from any of this.

Because we all know, the real problem is that the Iraqi’s can’t seem to pick a government. One that we like.

Those dirty, filthy, uneducated, petty, lazy, feckless, selfish, frivolous ungrateful sand dwellers. It’s all their fault. All of it.

Sure, why not.

Den Valdron - Did it ever occur to you that since WE made this mess WE need to fix it? The Iraqi people elected a parliament, risking life and limb to do it. The least the Iraqi legislators could do is complete what the Iraqis dared hell to do. WE started this, so WE need to help them fix it through getting a permanent government. It is their choice whether to do it or not, so if they choose not, we need to withdraw our troops, per Kerry’s plan. It’s the least WE owe the Iraqi people.

Taylor - You’ve been doing a superb job of writing and posting on these issues. Today, as I think I mentioned, was my first disagreement with your position.

I’ve been pointing to the planning for those bases for several years - many of us who used to comment at Billmon discussed this at length along with the move on Iran, etc.

Bottom line, we are not leaving - if we take PNAC seriously, we also are sure not downsizing.

Like you, I am not convinced the Democrats will do any better - I wish I were. I guess my new hope is that everyone will fight like hell to get the democrats elected and then folks will see what they stand for. Maybe they will surprise me - I would love that.

I grew up in this battle - began in jr high, campaigning like crazy in ‘64 for LBJ, the peace candidate and democrat - was a true believer. Saw how well that worked out. No more true believer - and often in despair as we face the same lessons again and again.

So Taylor, if you’re going to YKOS, I’ll buy the first round!

Looking on the not-so-bright side. If our troops stay in Iraq and keep getting killed there, they won’t be getting killed in Iran.

Silver lining and all that, you know.

Gee Taylor,

>Den Valdron - Did it ever occur to you that since WE made this mess WE need to fix it?

Sure, I accept that completely. I’m just assumed by the methods (cough/deathsquads/cough) which we’ve chosen to use. And I’m puzzled by how its become all the Iraqi’s fault.

>The Iraqi people elected a parliament, risking life and limb to do it.

Did they? I mean, certainly there was an election. And certainly, there was a vote. But did the results match the actual voting? I seem to recall some allegations. And more, were certain candidates funded by mysterious sources, and others harassed? And of course, what about this whole externally imposed proportional system that seemed designed specifically to produce deadlock? Where did that come from? I won’t be so churlish as to suggest the possibility, whatever the evidence might seem to conclude, that the US has attempted to interfere in the formation of said government to … pick its own ringers?

>The least the Iraqi legislators could do is complete what the Iraqis dared hell to do.

Yeah, its not as if their lives are at risk or anything. But what did the Iraqi’s ‘dare hell’ to do? Did the Shia’s elect hard line religious leaders to compromise with Kurds and Sunni’s? Did the Sunni’s elect leaders to assist them in getting bent over a table? What sort of compromises are accepable to these electorates? Perhaps these Iraqi politicians really are doing the jobs their constituents watn.

> WE started this, so WE need to help them fix it through getting a permanent government.

Acceptable to US and obedient to US? Under the control of US? We’ll help them to put a brown face on our occupation? Kinder gentler colonialism?

>It is their choice whether to do it or not, so if they choose not, we need to withdraw our troops, per Kerry’s plan. It’s the least WE owe the Iraqi people.

So, we’re going to help them by pulling out our troops and leaving them to the civil war and ruins that we’ve created? Having worked so hard to get them into this hole, we now point to a failure that we have engineered in order to justify the next round of atrocity and ignorance?

Do you have the least grasp of the intellectual and moral dissonance of your position?

we cannot fix/help fix/faux fix this
We fixing assumes we have some legitimate role
we fixing assumes our motives are pure
we fixing lightens our guilt

but we are the death squads here -
breeding more death squads
breeding chaos and civil war
we are the killers and thieves

If someone kills my child
I do not want them to help me with the funeral

go to markfromireland’s sites - look closer
there is no fixing possible

Just found this on the frustration of the Iraqi people with their government:

http://www.azzaman.com/english.....me=opinion2006-04-17153.htm

Siun - We have to try.

siun– just came back to check the thread– your remarks are very moving and spot on! Dru– thanks for bringing Riverbend up– sometimes the Iraqi victims voices are drowned out (nearly always). I read Dahr too, and though not an Iraqi, he is a bold American and good friend to the Iraqi people & a man who knows intimately the horrors they have experienced and continue to experience.

EDITED BY SITE OWNER

If you can’t be respectful of the people who post here you are out of here. Permanently.

Ah, but what does trying mean? The current political impasse in the Iraqi parliament is arguably one which has been deliberately engineered by choices which the United States delberately made in full knowledge of the range of consequences.

The American occupation was fully aware of the ethnic mixture of Iraq, and indeed, the ethnic and religious mixture of every province, and every city and town.

In particular, the United States was well aware that in any truly Democratic election, the overwhelming dominance of the Shia population, about 65% of the total, would rule. The U.S. was not entirely comfortable with this outcome, given the religious influence of clerics. america’s natural preference would be to give power to a sympathetic secular technocratic elite…. But those were the Baathists, who they had deposed and wished to purge. So, the US wanted the Sunni, but didn’t want the Sunni. That’s what the expatriates were, the Chalabi’s and the Allawai’s, the next natural ruling caste. Mixed in there were the Kurds, who were allies, but at least, not enemies in any forseeable scenario.

So, the objective was to design a governmental structure which would by its nature, frustrate inevitable Shiite dominance, cater to the Kurds, and allow some reasonable chance that with a little muscle, the American expatriate leadership could squeeze its way in, play people off, and run the country.

Thus the peculiar parliamentary system of ‘lists’ and proportional representation on a nationwide basis, the rules governing different sorts of majorities.

Of course, things began to to wrong. The big problem was how little support the expatriates had. Guys like Chalabi and Allawi got no traction with the local Iraqi’s, no matter how much money was spent on them, no matter how hard they were pushed, no matter how prominent their positions.

And then the Sunni’s sat out the first Election, which raised the specter of total Shiite domination with majority that would overwhelm any constitutional threshold.

So, right in the middle of the first election, ballot counting was stopped for three days, in order to clear up some problems. and suddenly, The Shiites super-majority vanished, the Kurds had a big surge and Allawi’s technocratic secular party became a (minor) force. Not the most favoured outcome. But the Shiites super-victory was snatched from them, and they were stalemated by Allawi and the Kurds.

Okay, let’s fast forwards a bit. There’s a referendum, on schedule, which is controversial and divisive, and for which there are very crucial claims fo fraud. There’s another election.

But here is the important thing: The Occupation retains all the power. The so called Iraqi government has no actual control over its military, or over military operations in its country. It is entirely dependent on the American military and diplomatic corps. The US controls the purse strings on the budgets, it controls the foreign aid, the reconstruction, it has ‘advisors’ in all departments, it has imposed the ‘TAL’ Traditional Administrative Law.

So, the Iraqi government, is in many ways, a puppet regime, no more real than Quisling or Vichy. It is certainly a powerless regime. Nor is the US interested in seeing it as a stand up regime.

What the US wants is not an independent state apparatus that will negotiate with it, but rather, a vehicle by which the US can negotiate its desires and policies with, and gain the acquiescence of the Iraqi people.

Thus, the emphasis on developing a system of government predisposed to stalemate and impotence. A nation afflicted by such a political system would be unable to stand for itself and would necessarily be easily dominated by outside (American) influence.

And the US has never been reluctant to medddle directly in the system. The various campaigns aginst Sadr. The pushing and massive funding of Allawi demonstrate this.

The most recent egregious example of this, is the recent American campaign against Jaafari, who by the rules established by the Americans, should be Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he isn’t acceptable. So, American influence and weight is thrown behind the Kurds and Sunnis, in order to produce an impasse. Condoleeza Rice’s visit acted only to harden that impasse. To resolve it, the Shiites must embrace a humiliating surrender. But a surrender cannot be imposed on them because they are the overwhelming majority. Thus, stalemate, manufactured in America.

Of course, for the average Iraqis, all this is just icing on the cake. Highbrow constitutional crises don’t cound for all that much when the price of gas or bread quadruples overnight, when your unemployment rate is 60% and you can’t walk over to the next street for fear of being shot, kidapped or robbed. The travails of a powerless government are meaningless.

Now, I suppose we could argue that the Iraqi government, if it could pull itself together, could start to deal with these things. But I doubt it. Security and military force will remain in the direct control of the United States. Reconstruction funds and foreign aid remain under the control of the US. The tax base is nonexistent and oil revenues are in a state of collapse, both largely because of American action. So, you have a government which is wholly dependent upon the United States for its existence, its security, its revenue. On the other side of the coin, many of the policies and initiatives such a government would take to combat the various problems would almost certainly put it directly into conflict with the United States - such as subsidizing food or gas, revitalizing state owned industries and businesses, taxing forign (American) corporations, limiting foreign (American) ownership, regulating reconstruction and purchasing locally, opening up trading relationships with Iran….

You see the point? An effective Iraqi government would almost certainly operate at cross purposes to the United States interests at least some of the time. That’s just not acceptable.

The problem for the US is that the problems of the country are rapidly escalating beyond the ability of the US to manage without sacrifice. These are sacrifices that America is unwilling to make. Sacrifice blood and treasure and Iraqi infrastrure? Yes. Sacrifice power? NO!!!

And so, the country bleeds to death, and a government which is a deliberate impotent joke is wracked by paralysis.

But, I suppose its just easier to blame the Iraqis, those dirty ungrateful gits.

Den Valdron

you are a smart person! succinct and great analysis. thank you.

Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle
the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and
he weareth the Christian down,
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name
of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried
to hustle the East.”

-Rudyard Kipling, “The Naulahka”

written more than a hundred years ago. how little things have changed. i found the verse in the front of hunter s. thompson’s “hey rube”.

Taylor,

I agree with your frustration at a government not being formed — but the problem lies with the Bush administration, not the Iraqis. They’ve been using all the pressure at their disposal to get the Shi’ites to drop Jafaari because the US can’t stand him — mainly because he’s socialist! The US has been the party keeping things at a standstill and damn the consequences.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the whole impasse may very well have been generated in the very first place by Republican Ohio-style electoral shenanigans. Everyone expected the Shi’ites to garner almost 2/3 of the December vote, and they got just less than 1/2. I didn’t think much of it until I heard Cheney on TV a few days before the results were announced saying “not to worry about the outcome”. That was a huge warning balloon to me that they are mucking with the Iraqi elections just like they (probably) mucked with the ones here. They have no shame and no ethics — why should a reasonable person expect anything otherwise?

Perhaps if the Iraqis has ASKED us to march in there to bring them freedom and democracy, they’d be a little more excited about getting their act together.