PDA

View Full Version : 15 out of 18 benchmarks reached



sack316
07-03-2008, 04:42 AM
and I sure don't seem to be hearing about it anywhere. Oddly enough last year when it was only 7 reached it was all over the place. Yep, everyone was right about media bias... just which ones were right?

Sack

mike60
07-03-2008, 03:09 PM
None of 'em.

mike60

nAz
07-03-2008, 03:33 PM
I hope "they" will talk about it more Id like them to tell us when they can come home, 15 of 18 is pretty close no? ah but why get them out when everything is going so swell.

BTW what will happen when we stop paying the Sunnis?

Gayle in MD
07-10-2008, 09:02 AM
Sack,
I don't buy this analysis. However, Maliki will be throwing us out eventually. He is damanding a withdrawal date now, and has been pushing for a withdrawel date for some time.

Since Bush and Cheney couldn't manage to throw the election in Iraq, like they did here, (Rove didn't have any connections in Iraq) their con man Chalabi didn't get to run the country in their best Neocon interests, aka OIL. Hence, Iran has more influence in Iraq, than the United States.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to rely on the Iraqi Prime Minister to send our troops home and out of harms way, from a Militarily unwinable war. Maybe we should have asked Maliki to provide the necessary helmets and uparmour to protect our troops when they got there. We'd have a lot fewer without legs and arms and brain injuries had Bush and Cheney given a damn about their safety.

On the Benchmarks, I thought the GAO had a totally different tally?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
07-10-2008, 09:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't buy this analysis. However, Maliki will be throwing us out eventually. He is damanding a withdrawal date now, and has been pushing for a withdrawel date for some time.</div></div>I say we give him one. The only scary thing is that the terrorists will just wait for that date and then come in and take over. We will have a Dem as President at that time and he will do NOTHING just like in the past and then Maliki will see he was an idiot for listening to the liberal press and Iraq will be taken over.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-10-2008, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW what will happen when we stop paying the Sunnis? </div></div>

Whatever is going to happen when we get out is not going to change regardless of how many American troops are killed or injured, or how long they stay there.

I can't believe that The Neocons who pushed for this mess in Iraq
have the nerve to show their faces in the media, nor can I understand how any news organization can print anything they write. The Republicans have been wrong about everything, and damaged ever aspect of American life, from national security, to the economy.
Rich men send the children of others to die for their own profits from war. They don't give a damn what happens to them, as long as they and their cronies are racking up the bucks.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where we should have stayed focused all along, and where those who attacked us have had years of safe harbor compliments of Bush and Cheney, are spiraling into complete chaos.


A new book, Descent Into Chaos, by Ahbmed Rashid, a Pakistani Journalist, about U.S. policy in the region, Pakistan/ Afghanistan, tells a sad story of just how incompetent and incredibly arrogant George Bush and Dick Cheney are, and the far reaching present and future devastating consequences of the Bush Administration. If McCain gets into the White House, we can hang it up.

Gayle in Md.

mike60
07-10-2008, 02:48 PM
Gayle, The Iraqis are showing at least they understand the reality of this occupation.
They demand the removal of all outside forces as soon as possible. McCain stated in 2006 that should the Iraqis ask us to leave we must leave. We'll see how he back tracks on this one. Thanks for the internet and videos to prove what liars Cheney and McCain are shown to be.
An interesting side track: When Osama went to Tora Bora there were US Special Forces units in Afghanistan that had been there for years. These troops were highly
trained and spoke the local dialect wore local tribal clothing and claimed to be able to
capture or kill Osama. They knew where he was hiding. Our leaders stopped them and transferred them to Iraq. Instead our leaders paid local tribesmen $2,000,000usd
to go get Osama. Well, Osama paid them more and they allowed him safe passage. In tribal areas this is honorable because the profit helps the tribe. The US Special Forces troops that were sent to Iraq didn't speak Arabic but they most likely do now. The best troops we've got.

mike60

LWW
07-11-2008, 12:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They demand the removal of all outside forces as soon as possible.

mike60 </div></div>
No they haven't.

Can you guys even read?

LWW

mike60
07-11-2008, 12:46 AM
LWW, Read this from the Washington Post, well known socialist rag.

Iraqis Condemn American Demands
Sides Negotiating U.S. Military Role
By Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 11, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD, June 10 -- High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely.

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

Congress has grown increasingly restive over the negotiations, which would produce a status of forces agreement setting out the legal rights and responsibilities of U.S. troops in Iraq and a broader "security framework" defining the political and military relationship between the two countries. Senior lawmakers of both parties have demanded more information and questioned the Bush administration's insistence that no legislative approval is required.

In Iraq, the willingness to consider calling for the departure of American troops represents a major shift for members of the U.S.-backed government. Maliki this week visited Iran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States.

Failing to reach agreements this year authorizing the future presence of American forces in Iraq would be a strategic setback for the Bush administration, which says that such a presence is essential to promoting stability. Absent the agreements or the extension of the U.N. mandate, U.S. troops would have no legal basis to remain in Iraq.

President Bush has spoken directly to Maliki about the issue in recent days and instructed his negotiating team to show greater flexibility, Iraqi politicians said. U.S. officials circulated a draft of the status of forces agreement over the weekend without many of the most controversial demands, buoying hopes that a deal could be reached, according to Iraq lawmakers.

David M. Satterfield, the State Department's top adviser on Iraq, said he is confident the pacts can be finalized in July, a deadline that Bush and Maliki endorsed last year. "It's doable," he told reporters in Baghdad. "We think it's an achievable goal."

U.S. officials have refused to publicly discuss details of the negotiations. But Iraqi politicians have become more open in their descriptions of the talks, stoking popular anger at American demands that Iraqis across the political spectrum view as a form of continued occupation.

"What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. And what we want is greater respect for Iraqi sovereignty," said Haider al-Abadi, a parliament member from Maliki's Dawa party. "Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen."

Iraqi officials plan to present the status of forces document and the security framework to parliament as a single agreement.

In a news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Satterfield repeated several times that the U.S. goal is to create a more independent Iraq. "We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened," he said.

Abadi and other Iraqi officials said that assertion is undercut by the U.S. request to maintain 58 long-term bases in Iraq. The Americans originally pushed for more than 200 facilities across the country, according to Hadi al-Amiri, a powerful lawmaker who is the head of the Badr Organization, the former armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the country's largest Shiite political party.

Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to Askari, positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

"We rejected the whole thing from the beginning," said Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker from the Supreme Council. "In my point of view, it would just be a new occupation with an Iraqi signature."

If the talks collapse, several Iraqi officials said, they would request another one-year extension of the U.N. mandate. But Iraqi officials said they would also ask for modifications to the mandate similar to those they are seeking in the current negotiations.

"All the same issues would then be transferred to the talks with the U.N. Security Council," Abadi said.

Assuming that violence in Iraq will continue to decrease, politicians such as Saghir have begun discussing another option: asking the U.S. military to leave Iraq.

"Maybe the Iraqi government will say: 'Hey, the security situation is better. We don't need any more troops in Iraq,' " he said. "Or we could have a pledge of honor where the American troops leave but come back and protect Iraq if there is any aggression."

The Iraqi government is also upset because it wants the United Nations to lift its Chapter 7 designation of Iraq as a threat to international security, which dates from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraqi officials said the United States will not commit to supporting the removal of the label -- a position the Iraqis call an inappropriate bargaining tactic.

U.S. negotiators also said the agreements would not obligate the American military to protect Iraq from foreign aggression, Iraqi officials said, a promise they believe was a fundamental part of a declaration of principles signed by Bush and Maliki last winter.

"The prime minister is not happy about this," said Askari, who helped negotiate the declaration of principles, which outlined the strategic framework. "This is not what we agreed on."

Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament who has been briefed on the negotiations, said the Americans recently had changed their position on four key issues: Private contractors would no longer be guaranteed immunity; detainees would be turned over to the Iraqi judicial system after combat operations; U.S. troops would operate only with the agreement of the Iraqi government; and the Americans would promise not to use Iraq as a base for attacking other countries.

"Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before," said Mohammed Hamoud, an Iraqi deputy foreign minister who is a lead negotiator in the talks.

In Washington, the White House hastily organized a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, demanded Monday that the administration "be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations."

In a letter Monday to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Levin and Warner wrote that Congress, "in exercising its constitutional responsibilities, has legitimate concerns about the authorities, protections and understandings that might be made" in the agreements.

Although they have questioned the status of forces agreement's contents, lawmakers have not raised the issue of its congressional ratification.

The United States is a party to more than 80 such bilateral agreements in countries where American forces are stationed, but its proposals for the Iraq accord far exceed the terms of any of the others. Such agreements are traditionally signed by the U.S. president under his executive authority.

Although the administration has since said that the security framework is "nonbinding" and would not include any provisions for permanent bases or specific troop numbers, lawmakers charged that the White House was trying to tie the hands of Bush's successor and said the terms of the accord amounts to a defense treaty requiring congressional approval.

In a Senate hearing in April, a senior Defense Department lawyer acknowledged under questioning by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that the Pentagon had no definition for the term "permanent base" and that it "doesn't really mean anything."

DeYoung reported from Washington.


View all comments that have been posted about this article.
2008 The Washington Post Company

mike666 james kopp murdering scum and doing forever as some guy's bitch

PS: Notice how the little Cheney-Bush adventure has helped Iran become Iraq's
new best friend. Nice work Neo-twits.

LWW
07-11-2008, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, Read this from the Washington Post, well known socialist rag.

Iraqis Condemn American Demands
Sides Negotiating U.S. Military Role
[*SNIP*]</div></div>
Thanks for posting an article proving my point.

I appreciate it.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-11-2008, 09:20 AM
Jawbreaker tells the complete story, written by one of the Special Forces in charge, can't recall the authors name at present, but the complete details are all there.

I posted the GAO report in another post, and as you know, the GAO is the only completely independent agency, if you will, of our government. I think it si worth a repost,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning
Lack of Comprehensive Strategy Cited, but Pentagon Study Sees Gains in Iraq








By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A14

The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

Bush's strategy of January 2007, the GAO said, "defined the original goals and objectives that the Administration believed were achievable by the end of this phase in July 2008." Not meeting many of them changed circumstances on the ground and the pending withdrawal of the last of the additional U.S. forces mean that strategy is now outdated, the report said. The GAO recommends that the State and Defense departments work together to fashion a new approach.


The GAO report contrasted with a Pentagon report, dated June 13 but not released until yesterday. The Defense Department's quarterly assessment to Congress, "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq," said that "security, political and economic trends in Iraq continue to be positive, although they remain fragile, reversible and uneven."

In many respects, the two reports seemed to assess wholly different realities. The 74-page Pentagon document emphasized what it called the "negative role" in Iraqi security that Iran and Syria have played. The 94-page GAO report did not mention Iran and referred to Syria only in the context of Iraqi refugees who had settled there.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate last year ordered the GAO -- Congress's investigative arm -- to assess the progress of U.S. objectives in Iraq. Yesterday's GAO report, which cites statistics through early June, said its work drew on a review of U.S. and Iraqi documents; interviews with officials across the U.S. government and intelligence agencies; and military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq.

In comments appended to the GAO report, the State, Treasury and Defense departments objected to its conclusions, especially the judgment that the administration needs to fashion a new strategy.

"We do not require a new strategic document," the State Department wrote. The Pentagon said it "nonconcurs with the GAO recommendation" to update the strategy, adding that the "New Way Forward . . . remains valid."

The Defense Department also disagreed with a separate GAO criticism -- contained in a classified appendix that was not publicly released -- that the Pentagon's year-old Joint Campaign Plan, written in Baghdad, "is not a strategic plan; it is an operational plan with limitations."

The Pentagon said the GAO chose a "misleading" measurement of Iraqi security capabilities -- that only 10 percent of Iraqi units had reached full operational readiness. A better measurement, it said, was the number of Iraqi units "in the lead" in joint operations, which it put at 70 percent.

The GAO's assessment of electricity, the Pentagon said, was flawed because it was measured against "an ever-rising demand." The Pentagon noted that output is now higher than before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The Pentagon also criticized the GAO's conclusion that Iraqi oil production is lagging. The "arbitrary goal" of 3 million barrels a day, the Pentagon said, had been set by the U.S. occupation government -- the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority -- and "fail[s] to capture the fact that oil exports" are now higher than at any time since the invasion.

The Treasury Department disputed the GAO's assessment of the Iraqi government's expenditures. It said investigators had used the wrong metrics to conclude that "Iraq's central ministries spent only 11 percent of their capital investment budgets in 2007, a decline from similarly low spending rates of 14 and 13 percent in 2005 and 2006, respectively."

On numerous points, the GAO report countered the rebuttals. "We agree that Iraq's budget doubled in size between 2005 and 2008," it said in one response to Treasury's objections. "However, much of the increase was due to a 25 percent appreciation of the Iraqi dinar and a four-fold increase in the budgets of Iraq's security ministries."





Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301978.html?tid=informbox




Al Qaeda's Growing On-Lin Offensive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302135.html

wire reports

Blast in Baghdad's Sadr City kills 4 Americans (June 24; 10:43 AM)

Bomb kills 6 Iraqis, 4 Americans in Baghdad (June 24; 9:09 AM)

Gunman in Iraq kills 2 American soldiers, wounds 4 (June 24; 12:48 AM)

Baghdad's minibus taxis bridge sectarian divide (June 23; 8:56 PM)

Freed of militias, Basra has new problems (June 23; 4:50 PM)

Iraqi PM pledges to enforce law after Amara raid (June 23; 4:05 PM)

European police nab Iraq immigrant ring (June 23; 3:41 PM)

Iraqi forces to take over security in Anbar (June 23; 8:28 AM)

Female suicide bomber in Iraq kills 15, wounds 40 (June 22; 2:36 PM)

Female suicide bomber kills 15 in Iraq (June 22; 1:21 PM)


Does this sound like the "Surge" is working?


Top
</div></div>

the Washington Post link is available on my original post.

I fully believe that bush sent word through bin Laden's family, many of whom are his and his father's business associates, that bin Laden would not be captured while he was in office, as long as they did not attack us again while he remained in office.

Gayle in Md.