Petraeus Hearings Begin on The Hill

[Rohirrim]

Ike Skelton (the Chairman) and Lantos open with statements in extremely clear language regarding what they want to hear from the General, point out how the administration has lied again and again, from out of the gate, and how the panel will be, rightfully, extremely sceptical of Petraeus testimony.

Hunter and Rons immediately launch into political smears, obfuscation of facts, and support for the George Bush philosophy, implying that anyone on the Left who disagrees with their take is unpatriotic and assisting the enemy.

Same ole, same ole.

I find it strange that the GOP supports the Bush policy which fundamentally falls completely in line with the stated wishes of Bin Laden.

[Rohirrim]

Extreme tension in this room. The GOP panel members are highly agitated about members of the audience and are pointing out people they want removed. Once again, our government looks ridiculous. They can't get the mikes to work. War protestors are being dragged out. Now they're taking a recess to fix the mikes. Dysfunctional.

[Rohirrim]

The media talking heads are picking up the GOP lead and attacking Move On.Orgs ads in the New York Times as deeply partisan. Of course, they have nothing to say about Hunter's smears of Lantos patriotism. Partisan smears from the Right are hunky dory. From the Left, they are dirty politics.

[Rohirrim]

Petraeus begins his statement.

Believes we can reduce troop levels by next summer.

It will be neither "quick nor easy" to reach our goals in Iraq.

Iraq problem: Competition over resources and control.

Iran is fueling much of the violence.

Outlines the history of the "Surge," as he sees it.

"Kinetic combat operations"

While there have been ups and downs, the overall picture is good.

Outlines sources of data and method of analysis.

"The level of security incidents has decreased."

"45% reduction in civilian deaths."

"Civilian death figures still too high"

Ethno-Sectarian deaths are going down punctuated by Al Queda "barbaric" attacks in an effort to reignite ethno conflicts.

Doing a much better job of uncovering and seizing arms within the country.

"Local rejection of Al Queda" Improvements in recruitment to police and Iraq army.

Anbar seems to be the showcase province while there are mixed results in the rest of Iraq.

Overall, the trend is down. "The number of attacks is still too high."

Outlines success against Al Queda in Iraq.

Al Queda is "not defeated" but "off balance."

"Synergy of actions" against Al Queda.

Outlines success against Shiite militias.

[Rohirrim]

Iran seeks to turn the Shiite militias into a Hezbollah type force to wage a proxy war against U.S. interests in Iraq.

The most significant element: Local populations turning their backs on Al Queda and rejecting "Taliban type ideology".

Petraeus is using Anbar as his keystone for example.
(can U.S. forces duplicate Anbar around the country?"

Iraqi units are engaged (140 battalions) despite shortages in equipment and leadership.

Iraq is working to expand their security capabilities. Maliki will do that with our continued assistance.

[Rohirrim]

Military operations of surge have created momentum.

More forces (especially Special Forces) will be required.

Political solutions will only be possible under an umbrella of security.

Recommends draw down of surge forces. One Marine unit already recommended to stand down. Goal July of 2008 to pre-surge levels.

After 2008, cannot make recommendations that far in the future.

Again, returns to Anbar as his keystone of success in Iraq.

Surprised and concerned by Iran's incursions.

Iraq forces require more "maturation" (to use Hunter's word)

Chart of troop reductions (Dependent on conditions in the future)

We still cannot hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces.

It will "require a long term effort"

Premature draw down will have catastrophic results.

The whole country will come apart if we leave.

Iran will move in.

Best thing to do?

Continue as we are doing now.

[Rohirrim]

Gives kudos to all Americans serving in Iraq.

Kudos to Congress for funding efforts.

"All Americans should be proud"

Protestors going off

[Rohirrim]

Some woman is going nuts. Might be Cindy Sheehan. Oy vey.

[Rohirrim]

Now for Ambassador Crocker.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Some woman is going nuts. Might be Cindy Sheehan. Oy vey.

it's unfortunate, people like Sheehan don't realize they are useful idiots to marginalize/polarize the public. "Their" cause is nothing more than a distraction.

[Rohirrim]

I'm not posting anymore because nobody is here.

[alkemical]

lol

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm not posting anymore because nobody is here.

Maybe it's because you're the only one BETWEEN Hell and High Water!

Now to the topic. Should we care about the hearings, considering no one will actually listen. Their minds are made up, and this is all just a show for the media clowns and the public, who doesn't care as long as it doesn't affect their immediate families.

[Rohirrim]

The real shame is that Americans cannot make an informed decision. The Bush administration has lied, and lied, and lied, and lied, and lied. Now they send their general and ambassador before us telling us that progress is being made and that if we don't hang in there, chaos will ensue, and perhaps a world cataclysm. Basically they are saying, "We know we have been lying in the past, but this time you have to trust us." Myself, I have no inclination to trust them, believe them or suddenly accept that this cast of incompetents have turned a new leaf and are suddenly competent. I have no reason whatsover to believe them, or trust them. It's like the guy who once sold you the Brooklyn Bridge coming back to your house, ringing your door bell, and when you answer it, he says, "Hey, old buddy. I have some great land in Florida for sale."

Then you have the partisanship. It's so vicious now, and the Right certainly whipped out the partisan smears against their fellows on the panel before the hearings could even begin, that nationally, the Left has no inclination to listen to the Right's arguments. Why should we? Every discussion is laced with insults, smears against our patriotism, assaults upon our intelligence. and a stream of ad hominem attacks. It's a shame, really. We come to a crucial decision for our country where bi-partisanship is essential, and it is impossible.

I still can't believe the senior GOP representative on this panel (Hunter) opened his remarks by slurring the Dem members of the panel right off the bat. Just pathetic.

[Denver Crush]

Rome anyone?

[Rigs11]

What a crock. You know how they got the casualties down?Anyone who is shot in the back of the head is counted as a murder victim not a casualty.By the way there were 1800 iraqis killed in August. Progress?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Now they send their general and ambassador before us telling us that progress is being made and that if we don't hang in there, chaos will ensue, and perhaps a world cataclysm.

Yep.

They persist with the same old lies and bullsh*t - even when intel says just the opposite:


Bush-Bin Laden Symbiosis Reborn

By Robert Parry

Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.

In a new video, al-Qaeda leader bin Laden again taunts Bush, the United States – and then the Democrats for not forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq, which should help guarantee that the Democrats won’t dare press for a withdrawal from Iraq.

At a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Sydney, Australia, President Bush then did his part, highlighting bin Laden’s Iraq comments:

“I found it interested that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is part of the war against extremists. If al-Qaeda bothers to mention Iraq, it’s because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out.”

Except that U.S. intelligence has long concluded that al-Qaeda really wants the opposite: to bog the United States down in a hopeless, bloody war in Iraq that has been a boon for recruiting young jihadists, raising money and protecting al-Qaeda’s leadership holed up in base camps inside Pakistan.

Bin Laden continues to play the role of another cartoon character, Walt Disney’s Brer Rabbit, who escaped one famously tight spot by begging not to be thrown into the briar patch when that was exactly where he wanted to go. [For more details on this Bush-bin Laden symbiosis, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

Cole Attack

At least since the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, al-Qaeda’s strategy has been to draw the United States militarily into the Middle East as a way both to enhance al-Qaeda’s status in the Muslim world and to weaken the Americans by draining their resources and damaging their army.

However, the Clinton administration couldn't verify that al-Qaeda was behind the Cole attack until January 2001 and then turned over the evidence to the incoming Bush team, which didn’t act because it had other priorities.

By summer 2001, U.S. intelligence was picking up chatter indicating that al-Qaeda was disappointed by the lack of a response to the Cole provocation but was confident that the next blow would force Washington’s hand.

That next attack on Sept. 11, 2001, did compel an American military reaction, but al-Qaeda may have miscalculated as an effective U.S. counter-attack ousted al-Qaeda’s Taliban allies in Afghanistan and cornered bin Laden and other top leaders at Tora Bora.

At that crucial point, however, Bush failed to dispatch sufficient U.S. troops to seal off bin Laden’s escape routes, allowing many of al-Qaeda’s top leaders to flee into the rugged tribal region of Pakistan.

To al-Qaeda’s relief and amazement, Bush also began diverting key U.S. military resources away from Afghanistan toward Iraq, whose secular Sunni leader Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al-Qaeda’s Sunni fundamentalists.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq not only eliminated a key Sunni rival in Hussein but rallied thousands of angry Muslims to al-Qaeda’s banner. Soon, al-Qaeda even had an affiliate in Iraq led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

As al-Qaeda gained strength in the Islamic world, bin Laden came to see Bush as something of a strategic ally. When Bush found himself in a tight battle with Democratic Sen. John Kerry, bin Laden issued a videotape denouncing Bush on the Friday before Election 2004.

The tape had the predictable effect of giving Bush a last-minute boost in the polls, which CIA analysts concluded was precisely bin Laden’s intent. Bin Laden wanted to keep Bush around as a foil for another four years. [See Neck Deep for details.]

Prolonged War

Also, contrary to Bush’s repeated assertions that al-Qaeda wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq so it can establish a safe haven there, the terrorist group’s internal messages, which have been intercepted by U.S. intelligence, reveal that al-Qaeda fears most the impact of a sudden American withdrawal.

A July 9, 2005, letter attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri warned that a rapid U.S. pullout could cause al-Qaeda’s new recruits, who traveled to Iraq to wage war on the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

“The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” wrote Zawahiri, who worried that a premature departure of the Americans also might leave the depleted ranks of al-Qaeda foreign fighters at the mercy of angry Iraqis.

Another internal communiqué revealed that al-Qaeda’s real wish was for the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely, so the terrorist group could continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.

In a letter to Zarqawi, dated Dec. 11, 2005, “Atiyah,” another top aide to bin Laden, described the hard work needed to overcome the animosity of Sunni tribal leaders. In that context, Atiyah said the continued American presence was crucial.

“Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote in a letter captured when Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]

So, the interests of President Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to dovetail perfectly. The open-ended “war on terror” has allowed Bush to consolidate previously unimaginable powers for a U.S. chief executive. Simultaneously, bin Laden has emerged as a hero to many Muslims offended by the American occupation of Arab lands.

Now, as Bush faces another Democratic challenge to his plans for continuing the Iraq War, bin Laden shows up again, essentially berating the Democrats for not forcing U.S. troop withdrawals.

“The vast majority of you [Americans] want it [the Iraq War] stopped,” bin Laden said. “Thus you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.”

That means if the Democrats do renew their efforts toward forcing American troop withdrawals, Bush and his supporters can simply accuse the Democrats of following bin Laden’s orders or playing into bin Laden’s hands.

The reality may be the opposite, but a few Republican floor speeches and a couple of well-placed op-eds should be enough to spook the already nervous Democrats.

Fox News commentator Sean Hannity offered a taste of how the new bin Laden tape will be used against both Democrats and the American Left.

“One of the things that also struck me is the language specifically that he [bin Laden] used,” Hannity said. “He seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard Left in this country, as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a ‘civil war’; he actually used the word ‘neocons’; he talked about global warming; he denounces capitalism and corporations.”

In other words, any similarity in language between bin Laden and what many Americans say in common conversations will be used to discredit them. They will become bin Laden’s fellow travelers.

All the better to get Bush and bin Laden what they both really want: a prolonged war in Iraq – and possibly a U.S. attack on the Shiite government of Iran.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/

About author Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' Robert Parry's web site is Consortium News

[Rohirrim]

We're losing between 70 - 100 Americans per month, plus how many wounded? This war is costing us $9 billion per month. How much more of this nation building can we take? Especially when we are doing it for people who really couldn't give a damn?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They say things are better in Iraq...



So why are so many more soldiers dying?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

They say things are better in Iraq...



So why are so many more soldiers dying?

To be blunt about it, they are more targets to be shot at.
Plus before they were holed up in the green zone.
Now they are out in the open more.

[gunns]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Some woman is going nuts. Might be Cindy Sheehan. Oy vey.

That woman is me. Our troops dying for our freedom, our way of life is acceptable, they knew the risks when they signed up and understand the possible consequences. Dying in support of sheer stupidity, for an administration's agenda that got "kind of" messed up is borderline murder. And now we need to stay because the mess we've created cannot be handed over

Being a part of the "hippie" generation I did not support the Vietnam war but being a part of a military family I never supported running to Canada to avoid military duty. If they were to call my son for duty in Iraq again I'd drive him there personally. But he wouldn't go, his buddies need him. That's the clincher, the Bush administration has been able to use the goodness of our best to carry out this debacle.

That being said my son is due home at the end of this month. Hope the ulcer holds out that long.

[Traveler]

General Petraeus=General Be-tray-US.

And when the dems continue to enable these clowns by continuing to fund this war, they will do so knowing that the blood of every soldier that died between the time they gained control of Congress and whenever this war is finally over is their fault.

I wonder, do the brave soldiers over there really know what their military objectives are? I sure the hell don't.

[Rohirrim]

I don't know how many caught the hearings today, but when Sen. John Warner asked Petraeus, point blank, if the efforts of our soldiers in iraq were "making America safer," the General answered, "I don't know." How do you like that one?

[alkemical]

not very much