4,000 dead Americans

[Art Sandusky 0]

Looks like they don't need hate crime laws there either!

[cbacon 0]

Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

An Iraqi Blueprint for Peace

by Karen Button

 

BEIRUT - “The US talks about withdrawal after bringing Iraqi security forces up to speed, yet has paid militias, allowed mercenaries, and, with few exceptions, ignored the blatant abuses and torture committed by Iraqi forces. They have ignored rampant corruption within all ministries, the most egregious resulting in a medical crisis and a judicial joke. They have also committed their own atrocities, ensuring that the new Iraq is riddled with violence, fear, and contempt for the occupying forces.”

 

Thus starts Planning Iraq’s Future: A detailed project to rebuild post-liberation Iraq. The 250-page peace plan was written over the past two years by 108 Iraqis that included Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, Assyrian Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and other minorities, the majority of which are sill in Iraq.

 

Unlike some other plans, like that put forward in January by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defense Minister and current advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, none of the Iraqis who worked on this plan have ties to the current government.

 

That’s important, maintain authors of the initiative, because its backing by occupations forces means it will never hold legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. Thus, it will always be a resistance target, says Dr. Khair El-Din Haseeb, Director General of Beirut’s Center for Arab Unity Studies, the Arab world’s most prominent think-tank, and sponsor of the project.

 

“This plan proposes a direction for the future of Iraq,” explained co-author Dr. Abdul Karim Hani in Damascus. “We’ve been asked many times what is the political program of the resistance. Well, this is it.”

 

Signatories on the plan represent thousands of Iraqis, the authors say, because many of them speak for larger groups. Hani, for example, is with the Iraqi National Foundation Congress, a broad coalition of political, intellectual, religious, and ethnic forces.

 

“This occupation came out of13 years of the worst sanctions the world has seen. Now, we have had four years of even worse suffering. These are the conditions under which this document was written,” explains Hani, who himself finally fled Iraq for Cairo a year and a half ago.

 

The imperative for Iraqis to re-gain control of their country is what fueled the broad-based plan.

 

“I don’t like being called a refugee and Iraqis shouldn’t have to be, yet there are millions who’ve had to leave their homes. To call it a ‘problem’ is too minor; I call it a catastrophe. Obviously, the occupation in Iraq has failed!”

 

Numerous other plans for Iraq have also been written by groups opposed to the occupation. Some, like that written by the Association of Muslim Scholars, the powerful Sunni clerics’ organization, have been submitted to the United Nations. Planning is underway for a high-level meeting next month which will coalesce the numerous Iraqi projects.

 

“We are forming a very broad unified resistance front that represents the will of the Iraqi people,” says Hana Ibrahim, co-author and director of the Baghdad-based NGO Women’s Will. “We are growing very large, so maybe we won’t agree on every detail, but we don’t need to. We can put smaller differences aside to agree on the most important point, ending the occupation of our country. What’s important is a unified resistance front.” “

 

Among the groups there are contacts with [armed] resistance groups, so we have their agreement as well,” explains Haseeb. At that point the group plans to dedicate a website where international support can be registered.

 

The distinction between Iraq’s resistance and other armed groups is critical, contends Haseeb, yet a serious lack of analysis most Western media wrongly lump all armed groups together under the “insurgent” umbrella.

 

“The [armed] resistance does not attack innocent people and condemns all violence directed at civilians. The Iraqi resistance, whether armed or political, is legally-sanctioned under international law.” This point, Haseeb argues, is missing in most media and completely ignored by the Bush Administration. He acknowledges, “there’s been a vacuum of political resistance. This [plan] will fill that vacuum.”

Main points include:

 

* All foreign troop withdrawal, including military bases and security forces;

* That fulfilled, Iraqi National Resistance declares ceasefire; - Annulment of the current political process;

* Installation of 2-year interim Prime Minister, nominated by consensus, under UN auspices;

* Installation of temporary peace-keeping forces from Arab nations that did not cooperate with invasion, with UN consultation;

* Elections held within two years;

* Army and security forces not allowed in political process;

* Interim government members not allowed in elections;

* Reformation of Iraqi Army

 

Importantly, the initiative also proposes a draft constitution, which maintains national unity, addresses oil rights, and guarantees civil and social rights.

 

“The plan is not perfect when it comes to women’s rights, but it gives us back what we had before,” says Ibrahim. “We must first end the occupation to end the violence. It doesn’t matter how many rights women do or don’t have if we can’t even walk down the streets in safety.”

 

A blueprint is desperately needed, Haseeb points out. “The political process is crumbling; we have coalitions of [local] governments rather than a central one. The ministers are all living in the Green Zone, meaning they have no access to the ministries they’re supposed to run. We know the Ministry of Interior has been penetrated by militias—at least 80 percent, the Army by at least 50 percent. That means the Americans cannot hand over security to the Iraqi forces as planned.

 

“They [the Americans] argue without the US Army the civil war will grow. This is nonsense! Even the Pentagon says resistance attacks have increased by 68 percent. This is against the US military. If the US withdraws, violence would obviously decrease. It’s simple math.”

 

In March Haseeb sent the plan to members of the British Parliament and US Congress, among others. He’s received acknowledgment from 24 Members of Parliament, bit nothing yet from Congressional members.

 

“I personally prefer to work out a plan for withdrawal with the American forces in Iraq, but with the grave mistakes they’ve made in the past, we can’t count on their rationality. “

 

Any extension or increase in Iraq will be at the cost of American and Iraqi lives. We need to make Mr. Bush understand this. Despite his security plan, at the end of April it will be the highest number of casualties yet.”

 

April was the deadliest month this year. One hundred Americans, 12 British, and an estimated 1000+ Iraqis were killed. (The US military does not record Iraqi civilian deaths; the Iraqi government refuses to release death counts.)

 

“I’m more hopeful than at any time before that the Americans will withdraw,” concludes Haseeb. “They have three choices, go big, go slow, or go home.”

[snuffbox 0]

One of the Al Qaeda leaders released a video saying they dislike the Withdrawl Timetable Bill as it could take away their opportunities to kill so many Americans in Iraq.

 

Fox, of course, then put up a graphic saying that 'Al Qaeda supports the Democrats'.

 

Seriously.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

One of the Al Qaeda leaders released a video saying they dislike the Withdrawl Timetable Bill as it could take away their opportunities to kill so many Americans in Iraq.

 

Fox, of course, then put up a graphic saying that 'Al Qaeda supports the Democrats'.

 

Seriously.

 

What, you didn't know Osama endorsed John Kerry?

[Gary Floyd 0]

MSNBC Video:11 GOP Members tell Bush he's lost credibility when it comes to Iraq.

[Guest Vitamin X]

One of the Al Qaeda leaders released a video saying they dislike the Withdrawl Timetable Bill as it could take away their opportunities to kill so many Americans in Iraq.

 

Fox, of course, then put up a graphic saying that 'Al Qaeda supports the Democrats'.

 

Seriously.

 

What, you didn't know Osama endorsed John Kerry?

 

dude youre a fucking nazi! like you should talk

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It was sarcasm, dumbass.

[snuffbox 0]

We've been getting a lot of these '5+ dead' days the past couple of months. I shudder to think how many more will die/be injured and how much stronger alQaeda will be allowed to get if we escalate in this fashion until at least September.

[NoCalMike 0]

Interesting that the 11 members of the GOP waited until Cheney was out of the country before they got the balls to tell the President that he has lost credibility.

[snuffbox 0]

And they voted against the latest benchmark bill anyway.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=RSS&rpc=22

 

Report says that Iraq is on the verge of "collapse." (Link from Drudge)

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. … Bush budget officials said the administration ’strongly opposes’ both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases ‘unnecessary.’

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/mili...tehouse_070516/

[Art Sandusky 0]

SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

[snuffbox 0]

More Patriotism: Working the underpaid American military harder so the Iraqi Parliament can take a(n entire) summer vacation.

[SamoaRowe 0]

This is so typical. The next time I see people holding a protest rally because "congress doesn't support the troops" I'm just going to laugh in their fucking faces even harder.

[snuffbox 0]

Another 7 yesterday. We will probably top 3,500 by July 4th.

[NoCalMike 0]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush won a battle over nearly $100 billion to fund the Iraq war as congressional Democrats on Tuesday abandoned troop withdrawal efforts for now but pledged to try again in July.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Instead of setting schedules for withdrawing U.S. troops, it appeared the Democratic-run Congress and the Republican White House agreed for the first time to include conditions prodding Baghdad to make better progress toward quelling violence or risk losing some U.S. reconstruction aid.

 

"We've been led to believe that that is the language that is likely to be in the final version," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky told reporters.

 

That provision passed the Senate last week, with a few Democrats supporting it. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada said of the language crafted by Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record): "If you look in the dictionary under 'weak' the Warner amendment would be listed under it."

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the measure would provide "the funding and flexibility the forces need. That's what we've wanted all along."

 

On May 1, Bush vetoed Congress' first version of this year's emergency war funds bill because it set an October 1 deadline for starting to pull most of the 147,000 soldiers out of Iraq, a goal of anti-war Democrats.

 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), a Maryland Democrat, said lawmakers were putting the finishing touches on a new bill, and acknowledged the political realities.

 

"The president has made it very clear he's not going to sign timelines (for withdrawing troops). We can't pass timelines over his veto," he told reporters.

 

DISAPPOINTMENT FOR SOME DEMOCRATS

 

That will be a disappointment for some Democrats who say they won control of Congress last November largely because voters wanted to see an end to the 4-year-old war in Iraq. But it was welcome news for Republican leaders who have argued Congress should not be "micro-managing" the war.

 

"Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio.

 

Some Democrats have predicted for months that it would take longer to force troop withdrawals. They argue that even with a weaker bill, they have ended four years of "rubber stamp" war funding bills of the previous Republican-run Congress.

 

Hoyer and Reid said Democrats would continue pushing for a "change in direction" in Iraq, where at least 3,420 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 34,000 wounded.

 

"Certainly we'll do it in July when Mr. Murtha's bill is on the floor," Hoyer said.

 

In the meantime, Democrats are fully funding Bush's war financing request.

 

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) has led efforts in the House of Representatives to end U.S. combat in the Iraq war. In July, Murtha will shepherd a military funding bill through the House for the next fiscal year, starting October 1.

 

Bush and most Republicans have argued that setting dates for withdrawing U.S. troops would rob military commanders of the flexibility they need to conduct the war.

 

Despite those charges, even some congressional Republicans, Boehner among them, have spoken of autumn as the timeframe for reassessing progress in Iraq and possibly producing "Plan B."

 

Under the Democrats' latest strategy, the war funding bill will pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. Aides said there would be benchmarks for measuring Iraq's progress toward stability and setting up a competent army.

 

There would also be consequences for Iraq not meeting the benchmarks, the aides said -- likely to be limits on about $1.6 billion in reconstruction aid, as in Warner's proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

-Wow, I guess these pussys want to lose in '08.

[snuffbox 0]

How does that possibly help anyone in the GOP field? The new bill only covers the next 4 months & many Republicans are already saying they will bolt if there aren't SERIOUS improvements by then. Nobody but the most naive and gullible believer in this Administration's babble thinks any kind of real improvement (let alone something dramatic) wiil happen in the next 4 years let alone 4 months. It will not.

 

The people who will suffer from this bill are not the Democrats in the 2008 field. The GOP candidates are a lost cause as they try to out-'conservative' the other for the primaries (they're already calling on fictional televison characters to fight terrorism, imagine where these guys will stand next Jan/Feb) so this bill, or any other, is largely moot for them. The only people hurt by this are those that will continue to actually die at the horrific pace we have been seeing since the Surge began.

[EricMM 0]

Yes.

 

There is no logical way this slightly Democratic Congress can surmount the will of this president without two thirds majority. Bush has already shown that he has no concept of budging on this one, and he has enough lock-step supporters to keep an override from happening.

 

The Dems had to try, to show bush as the insulated dope that he is.

 

The sad part is that the Dems just aren't fighting a war of words effectively, AT ALL. They need to be roundly denouncing this war at every opportunity. Bollocks to the "not supporting the troops" stuff. They should say that, too.

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem is that the Democrats are not communicating that cutting off the funding to the war means THE END OF THE WAR, it doesn't mean(as republicans are being fucking intellectually dishonest about) that the soliders will be running around in Iraq without guns and bombs and help, it means they will come home.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I agree, the Democrats are being too nice at this point. They're too concerned about being called troop haters. They should be going for the throat at this point. I want a vicious, pull no punches, Democratic Party. Not this pussy footing BS.

[EricMM 0]

They're still smarting from the Great Smear of 04, I think.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You're probably right, despite the irony of there being a whole election between then and now.

[snuffbox 0]

Considering the precedent of America's ability to be duped (elections of '64, '72, '02, '04, belief in the evils of black people, women having rights, Hispanics, etc) they probably realize that one election of not believing sophomoric rhetoric will necessarily repeat itself next cycle.

[NoCalMike 0]

NEW LONDON, Conn. -

President Bush portrayed the Iraq war as a battle between the U.S. and al-Qaida on Wednesday.....

 

---------

 

Umm yeah I would have posted the rest of the drivel in the article....but the opening line pretty much sums it up....

 

On an unrelated but related note.......

 

Why we're in Iraq

[NoCalMike 0]

EDIT: Oops

[Guest George's Box]

Failed post. (Failed mascot?)

[snuffbox 0]

Anyone else catch John Boehner's speech today?

[NoCalMike 0]

I guess I now know why the Democrats never win. They were voted into power to end the war, and they just bent over and took it in the ass. Of course they will say "it's so we could raise minimum wage" but that is a line of bullshit, because raising the minimum wage had overwhelming support of the american people and could have been passed without piggybacking onto a bill about war funding. I am so dissapointed and frustrated.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There are a lot of really shitty Democrats, but 142 voted against this, as John Boner would say, shit.

 

A big hearty fuck you to my Representative, Ben Chandler (D-KY-6).