And Now For the Really Big Iraq Story of the Day
Let’s save a little of that “Mission Accomplished†fourth anniversary hysteria over the alleged death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri for the day’s really big story.
No, not President Bush’s intended veto of the Democratic war spending-with-deadlines bill. It’s this bombshell from CNN:
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country’s sectarian divide.
The “Office of the Commander in Chief” has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.
Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.
The Office, as it is known in Baghdad, was set up about four months ago with the knowledge of American forces in Iraq. Its goal is ostensibly to advise Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki — the nation’s new commander in chief — on military matters.
According to a U.S. intelligence source, the Office is “ensuring the emplacement of commanders it favors and can control, regardless of what the ministries want.”
More here.
The notion being floated by the White House that Al Maliki can get his house in order if only given another six months is a grotesque fiction. And a cruel affront to every man and woman wearing an American uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan and the many thousands who have come home in pine boxes or with body parts missing.
Once more with feeling, gang: It is time to get the hell out of Iraq.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “And Now For the Really Big Iraq Story of the Day”
It’s well past time actually, but sadly it isn’t going to happen.
On the bright side this advertisement is set to begin running nation wide the moment Bush vetoes the emergency spending supplement.
no argument. none.
Davebo, Bush has to veto the spending supplement. To do otherwise would be to create a domestic precedent for the US that future presidents would be stuck with (i.e., letting Congress determine the parameters of foreign policy).
That said, it is clear that the Iraqi government is not only not doing heavy lifting (or any lifting) to help the US, but it is preparing groundwork for a Shi’a Iraq that may be allied with Iran.
If recent reports – not just today’s news – of the Iraqi insurgents turning on al-Queda are reliable, then it is unlikely that Iraq will become a base for international terrorism a la Taliban Afghanistan.
Thus, I think Shaun is correct in his declaration that it is time to get out. I am not sure what good a continued US presence can do beyond this summer.
I would hope President Bush vetos the supplement, and then accepts the general wisdom on capitol hill and moves to withdrawal.
What rubbish! A domestic precedent was set in Vietnam if you’ll recall.
Or should we just disband the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee. And of course scrap the War Powers Act.
Congress authorized this war. They can certainly de-authorize it as well.
I’m afraid I can see the future all too clearly. The Iraqi government, such as it is, continues to be propped up by American guns and Al Sadr’s patience. The day will come when Sadr will claim the government. There will be no more of those reassuring-looking leaders in dark business suits. Bush had better hope he’s out of office when that day comes. No more photo ops. No more pretending that things are getting better. They aren’t. They won’t.
> Congress authorized this war.
> They can certainly de-authorize
> it as well.
It’s not Congress’s role to conduct the war itself (nor engage in foreign policy, nor do what it actually has been doing here, simply trying to undermine and weaken the President).
“What rubbish! A domestic precedent was set in Vietnam if you’ll recall.”
No. Then it was sufficient to override a veto. Here, quite clearly, the Democrats cannot override Bush’s veto.
The Democrats are playing politics with this as much as anyone…see Pelosi’s delaying the bill “so she can read it further”…in reality, in order to ensure it gets to Bush on the same day of his “Mission Accomplished” event.
For Bush to accept this kick in the crotch from Pelosi would be foolhardy. He will slap back. He has to…both for his own sake, and for the future.
Otherwise, there is the implication that a slim Congressional majority (and 1 seat in the Senate is a slim as they come) can allow Congress to determine all future military deployments.
Marlowecan:
Your first comment was spot on.
As to your second: Quite frankly, the politics of the war don’t mean a rat’s rectum anymore, especially in light of the CNN story, and are hardly worthy of serious comment.
I agree Shaun, its really now just about how we lose this thing, and when we admit that to ourselves. I don’t see much benefit in delaying. Maybe if we get out of Iraq we can still save Afghanistan, and who knows maybe even re-focus resources on getting Bin Laden…
DaveA:
The U.S. no longer has even a modicum of gravitas, let alone dignity. You are correct that this is “now just about how we lose this thing.”
I want to be hopeful that some greater good comes out of this catastrophe, but it has been a profounding depressing day. Perhaps things will seem more hopeful tomorrow.
Ever hear the saying “You break it, you buy it”…? Well, we broke Iraq…we’re stuck there till it’s fixed. Sucks, but that’s the reality of it.
chuckprez: this ain’t pottery barn, we’re not obligated to do anything that isn’t in our national interest.
davea: how do you support getting out of Iraq while sticking around in Afghanistan? What makes Afghanistan worth sticking around to help the government and people stay free of the terrorist-supporting Taliban who would take over from Karzai while we ought not do the same for Iraq, to keep them free of the terrorist-supporting groups who would take over when we leave? If anything, wouldn’t it make more sense to stick around in Iraq given that there are (by my reckoning) more Al Qaeda there than in Afghanistan and the more critical role Iraq plays in the Middle East?
Shaun: you have the wrong attitude. We’re never going to get out so long as doing so is defined as ‘losing’. What we need is a definition of winning that both Democrats and Republicans can get behind and support, the GOP because they know they’re going to get their butts kicked in 2008 if they keep thumbing their noses at the voters and the Democrats because they (grudgingly) accept that it’s better for the country to get out of Iraq than it is to continue trying to score political points (such as Pelosi waiting until today to sign the bill).
>> How do you support getting out of Iraq while sticking around in Afghanistan?
Well, Iraqi civilians want us out. Our civilians want us out. It was a lie that got us into Iraqi (IMHO). Once we leave the Iraqi’s will take care of Al-Qaeda on their own, among other less than desirable actions, but they will handle it. Al-Qaeda has legitimacy there largely from fighting us. We go = no legitimacy.
In Iraqi we are already supporting SCIRI and DAWA, at least one of these parties has been linked to terrorism in the past. And one is cozy with Iran (probably same one). So, I reject terrorist will take over, because they are already in place… And, frankly we have supported MEK an PKK too so meh on that.
Heck, if we get “lucky” Al-Sadr takes over in the vacuum. Funnily enough when you think about it, but he is not a bad candidate. He is not cozy with Iran, a nationalist and has some credit with several Sunni groups. Yeah he hates us too, and will do the relgious law thing (already happening anyway), and purge (again already happening). But there are actually a lot worse that could happen from our perspective. At least if we want Iraq together, and want them not to be too cozy with Iran.
Okay, on to why stay in Afghanistan? We invaded to over throw the Taliban/Al-Qaeda who were responsible/sheltering those who behind 9-11. That has not changed. Afghanistani(sp) civlilians want us there (although these numbers are probably fading…). IF we can stablize Afghanistan by hurrying up and paying it some attention. And, if they still want us… Then lets try. We will still be near Iraqi borders (if needed) and we will still be near Pak (after Osama) borders. Of course, if they no longer want us as well, then might as well pack it in there too.
I am not arguing that we don’t have some responsiblity for fixing things. But we are more problem than solution in Iraq, at least at this point. Without a change in our command and a severe shakeout in the nepotism that has stocked our non-military initiatives there, it is very unlikely we will accomplish anything positive in Iraq since the solutions there are political more than military. Heck even with such change, I am fairly convinced that we blew too much at this point to fix things.
When the Commander-in-Chief is as inept as this one, it becomes the role of the other branches to step in and rein him in. Why should Bush be allowed to exhaust our armed forces, just so he can show the unwavering resolve that Karl Rove’s talking points highlight. The right wing media (FNC and the am talking heads) have sold the public the administration’s bill of goods. I guess the Republicans that still believe we are winning need to start thinking for themselves and reading other media sources.
Maliki has not enabled power-sharing with the Sunnis, and has purged the army of officers who were willing to confront the Shiite death squads. Either we will massacre the Sunnis for al Sadr, or he’ll decide to take power again. This is a scam, except for the valiant effort made by our guys to make it work.
Kritter you left out the fact that Malaki is now purging the government as well, and the Iraqi parliament is taking 2 months off as well.
This crap is over folks, no amount of protecting Bush will cover the fact the Iraqi gov. is like having a logchain around our ankle so we should hack that friggen chain off, and come the hell home if they don’t take things anymore serious than what they are showing.
Ok, thanks- I put the parliament fact in another post on the same subject, did not know the other point.
The conservatives were screaming the other day because some commenters dared to question Bush’s mental health- but I will go on record and question it with them. Even LBJ didn’t run a war this badly, and he made enormous mistakes and hid them from the public. In the age of internet bloggers, this stuff all comes out in the open before the administration can write up the next set of Talking Points, lol.
My question, which I will continue to pose on this site until there’s an answer, is how long are the congressional Republicans going to cruise the Atlantic on the Titanic with their party’s leader before he takes them all down with him??
kritter, so long as their base supports it. I have strong feelings they would really like to jettison it, for they fear losing more ground to the dems in ’08. On the other hand, if they go against their base, then another ‘pub candidate will run against them. And, if the re-election odds are a lot slimmer by supporting Iraq, then those odds go to 0 if they lose their base.
I figure the party is in some disarry, and is waiting till Praeteus’s Sept update to ditch Iraq as some have speculated. They really need time for the “liberals lost us the war” meme to sink in for the base, so that they can be herded toward the exit without logically tying themselves in obvious knots.
They don’t need to override the veto.
George Bush needs the funds and he can’t veto himself a check.
Everyone assumes that George Bush won’t compromise, and that the Democrats will give in completely to avoid “playing chicken with the troops”. The president personally believes that, which is why he doesn’t care what Pelosi and Reid think about the war.
But, if they are as stubborn as he is, he’s out of luck and his war is over.
Good answer, Dave A., and so true. The am radio crowd still has to completely indoctrinate its base about the two surrender monkeys, Reid and Pelosi, who are blowing the war effort right and left, reversing the significant progress Bush has made since 2003 towards establishing a stable democracy. Once that audience began believing in the “liberal-leaning MSM, they were primed to swallow anything that Rush and Sean want to dish out.:) They will never believe that decisions made right after the invasion doomed the effort from the start.
I really don’t see how Congress telling the president how to conduct things at this point is out of line. He’s had 4 years, hundreds of billions, and thousands of lives left in his hands to get something done and he has failed miserably. So what is a country to do? What do you do when the chief exectutive is unable to competently carry out his job functions? Just let him keep going, let him keep ignoring the advice from every corner so he can pursue his own screwed up idea of how it should be done?
No. He is not a king. Congress is there to exert power to constrain the executive branch from going too nuts and thats what this bill is about. Those on the right say it with me, ACCOUNTABILITY. Daddy isn’t there to bail Dubya out this time, we are bearing the unbearable for his sake so he can simply dump it in the next president’s lap. Someone has to get the idiot in the oval office to change tactics and Congress is the only body capable of doing that.