Iraq: Goal is to Recover from Strategic Mistake

[So I lied...I did go out and didn't blog. Sue me. lol]

Retired Lt. Gen William Odom makes very inspired remarks in this Democratic Radio Address:

Short Bio

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) delivered the Democratic Radio Address. General Odom has served as Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. In his address, General Odom will discuss why he believes President Bush should sign the conference report on the Iraq Accountability Act.

Excerpts

"Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.
"I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me.

"In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

"Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

"To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is 'absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

Indeed. This conflict has been nothing but counterproductive for American interests. It has weakened our military power, our international prestige and influence, eliminated whatever goodwill we had after 9/11, and emboldened and empowered the very enemies that we sought to defeat.

I particularly like how he phrases the idea that the goal can no longer be of winning but minimizing as much as possible the ill effects of entering into this conflict in the first place:

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

"But it has served Iran's interest by revenging Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran's influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda's interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.

"We cannot 'win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

"A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.

"No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.

"It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq's borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.

"The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.

*claps* Ditto. To continue a failed policy is madness. To continue a failed policy that serves the interests of our enemies while robbing us of so much...its beyond madness.

And evidence of the ongoing failure of this whole endeavor continue to pile on.

Now it appears like the White House itself is not really all that optimistic about its much vaunted 'surge: (NY Times)

WASHINGTON, April 27 — The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials.

In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri
Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.

That prospect would entail a dramatically longer commitment of frontline troops, patrolling the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baghdad, than the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week.

That vote, largely symbolic because Democrats do not have the votes to override
the promised presidential veto, set deadlines that would lead to the withdrawal
of combat troops by the end of March 2008.

Things are not looking good right now, so they dont even want to try and guage how their 'surge' is going. Even then there is a definite note of pessimism within the Administration.

I though this passage was revealing:

In January, Mr. Bush characterized Mr. Maliki as an architect of the troop increase plan, even while telling visiting Congressional leaders that “I said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out,” according to two officials who were in the room. Pressed on why he thought the new strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back, “Because it has to.”

Add it with this correct analysis (from some Republicans no less!!)

Other Republicans have urged Mr. Bush to explain the political strategy more clearly, arguing that the troop increase is merely a tactic, and not one that can be sustained for long.

Not only merely a tactic, but a rehashing of the same failed tactics (with some modification).

This is NOT the first time that thousands of extra troops were sent in to Iraq to settle it down, and also it's not the first time that the extra troops failed to improve security in Iraq.

Oh, this time the president is confident that it will work. Why?

"Because it has to?"

Sigh.

There is a well-known saying that fits our president: (paraphrasing)

'A sure sign of madness is when a person does the exact same thing twice and expects the results to be different.'

------------

Yet, it's not just that the Iraq 'surge' is messed up (well, the whole endeavor is FUBAR).

The whole 'War on Terror' as run by this administration is failing miserably. As run by them it has been more than failure, it has been counter-productive.

According to an upcoming report by the State Department - Terror attacks up 29% in 2006. (McClatchy News Washington Bureau)

WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

(snip)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.

Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said.

(snip)

Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community's National Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005.

Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq.

Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in at least one fatality, also up from 2005.

The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don't include strikes against U.S. troops.

(snip)

President Bush and his aides routinely call Iraq the "central front" in Bush's war on terrorism and likely will say that the preponderance of attacks there and in Afghanistan prove their point.

But critics say the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have worsened the terrorist threat.

The contention by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that al-Qaida terrorists were in Iraq and allied with the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the
invasion has been disproved on numerous fronts.

[My Note: Most of them even prior to the invasion itself]

So this central front against terrorism is going badly. Indeed, while at one time it was not some haven for terrorism, because of the invasion it has become one. It has worsened the threat of terrorism, and caused so much damage military and political to us.

To continue with the same foreign policy, to continue with the same type of leaders who will follow in the same footsteps...

We know the the past 6+ years of leadership and foreign policy are failures, there is no reason we should support anyone who wants to follow in President Bush's footsteps.

After all, you know the saying about expecting different results from the same action....

Update: Juan Cole puts it well

Warrent Strobel and Jonathan S. Landry of McClatchy report that the annual State Department on terrorism will report a nearly 30% rise over the previous year, most of it accounted for by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words Cheney has it exactly backwards. The US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is feeding terrorism, not preventing or lessening it. "They" won't follow us home if we leave. But they might if we don't.

"Jiffy-Law"

Jon Stewart slams Pat Robertsons Christian 'Law Schools': (video)

Hahaha!! Its funny how the focus is more on promoting Christian interests through law than in simply serving the law, no wonder they are 4th tier. And the fact that they have so many graduates in the White House reinforces the perception (a correct one) that this White House and conservatives in general prefer ideological and religious folks running things, as opposed to just plain qualified people.

Oh no!! The people running things are unqualified beyond politics or religion...who would have guessed. [/sarcasm]
------

House Minority Leader Boehner voted for Somalia Withdrawal, now says we cannot leave Iraq 'like we left Somalia'

In 1993, current House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) voted numerous times to limit the deployment of troops in Somalia, including one bill that set a six-month timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Like several other war supporters who once backed timelines, Boehner now attacks those who favor redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq’s civil war as “defeatists” who want a “date certain for surrender.”

But Boehner has taken this hypocrisy to a new level. Despite clamoring for a withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, he had the temerity to charge yesterday that war critics were “walk[ing] out” on Iraq “just like we did in Somalia.”

Heh. Bet I know their answer to this: "But, but...It was different!!" lol
-----------

'Minority AIDS Initiatives threatened by funding changes' (via Rawstory).

--------

I'll have a little more substance later tonight. I'm not going out tonight (I did enough Thursday and Friday) so I'll definitely be writing something.

What Horseshit!!!

This narrative popped out a few months ago, and I greeted it with the same skepticism and annoyance then as I do now.

According to CNN, US military sources say: Iraqi insurgents are being trained in Iran

First, some choice snippets

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents are being trained in Iran to assemble weapons and Iranian-made weapons are still turning up in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

The statement comes two months after the United States said it had asked Tehran to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq.

Coalition forces found a cache of Iranian rockets and grenade launchers in Baghdad on Tuesday, spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday.

(snip)

He accused the Quds Force of supplying Iraqi insurgents with armor-piercing roadside bombs, called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs.

Caldwell said extremists are getting training on how to "assemble and employ EFPs."

"We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to
assemble them and how to employ them," Caldwell said. "We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees' debriefs."

He said Shiite extremists are being trained inside Iran and said the use of such weapons requires "very skilled training." Much of the violence in Iraq is blamed on fighting between Shiite and Sunni insurgents. An overwhelming number of Iranians are Shiite.

(snip)

In an unusual development, he said coalition forces have found evidence that Sunni insurgents in Iraq received help from intelligence services in the Shiite nation of Iran.

"We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups, some support," Caldwell said. "We do continue to see the Iranian intelligence services being active here in Iraq in terms of both providing funding and providing weapons and munitions."

First, it simply defies belief that Shia Iran, would choose to intercede in the Iraqi civil war (between Sunni and Shia) on the side of the Sunni by providing it the training, intelligence, and weapons used to kill its co-religionist in the sectarian conflict. The article and the official is pretty vague about its proof, and such has been the situation when it usually turns out to be false down the road.

Adding further than in the context of the administrations current attempts to isolate and demonize the Iranian regime, it also strikes me as very suspect (if logically baffling) for the US to claim that Iran is arming the faction (the Sunni insurgency) most responsible (80+%) for US casualties.

The vague sounding intelligence, the context, the lack of logic in the charges just does not add up to something...right. Its fishy, just as fishy as the last time they tried to tie Sunni insurgents with Iran.

Why is it that they are so sure that these arms must be from Iran: Too hard and complicated for Iraqi's to manufacture, and as the article above mentions "it requires very skilled training to use."

But is that really true?

Back when this issue initially popped up in February, Paul Kiel of TPMuckracker (excellent investigative reporters) pointed out something that questions this assertion:

Two weeks ago, the Bush administration organized an intelligence briefing for journalists in Iraq to demonstrate that Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents. According to the anonymous briefers, the weapons -- particularly
explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s -- were manufactured in Iran and
provided to insurgents by the Quds Force -- a fact that meant direction for the
operation was "coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government."
Well. A raid in southern Iraq on Saturday seems to have complicated the case.

There, The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.), troops "uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had thought were made only in Iran." The main feature of the find were several copper liners that are the main component of EFPs. But, The New York Times reports, "while the find gave experts much more information on the makings of the E.F.P.'s, which the American military has repeatedly argued must originate in Iran, the cache also included items that appeared to cloud the issue."

Among those cloudy items were "cardboard boxes of the gray plastic PVC tubes used to make the canisters. The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran."

Possibly, the Times muses, "the parts were purchased on the open market" and then "the liners were then manufactured to the right size to cap the fittings."

If you have LexisNexus than you might be able to get the Wall Street Journal article to verify, but the NYT article should be up. If not let me know and and I'll Lexis Nexus both of them and cite them, I'm too lazy now.

Anyways, the point is clear: These weapons that are so advanced that they must be manufactured in Iran, could easily have been manufactured by domestic Iraqi bombmakers in their own domestic workshops, using parts that could easily be found throughout the Middle East.

If that is the case, it further brings official assertions about Iranian aid to insurgents into doubt.
Do not get me wrong. I can totally believe that Iran 1) arms Shia militias and 2) possibly trains them. That I could totally believe -- in fact I'd be surprised if they didn't help their co-religionist in the civil war.

Its just beyond belief that Iran would arm the Sunnis against the Shia.

Why are they putting blame on Iran for arming insurgents? That is the question. I suspect it has to do with the fact that Sunni insurgents and Sunni al-Qaeda elements are responsible for 80+% of US casualties, so its helpful for the administrations cause to tie Iran in to the death of so many of its own soldiers for reasons of international politics.

What is ironic about this situation is that, pretty soon, it will be the Shia militias and any EFPs they have that will come to inflict ever greater casualties on US soldiers. Why? Because the truce between US forces and the Shia militia of Muqtada al-Sadr is over and its leader is calling for renewed attacks on the US.

Shia and Sunni fighters and their EFP's will both come to bear on US soldiers in the coming days, weeks, and months, and that bodes ill for US forces and for the vaunted Surge that is already failing at this early stage.

Sigh. Sometimes covering this is depressing....

Oh, one more thing before I go. Echoing sentiments and conclusions many of us have long since come to (especially about the ill effects of the Iraq War), comes a study in a UK think thank. I haven't read the actual study but it more or less repeats what many of us already knew:

US-British 'War on Terror' Backfires (Agence France Presse)

The US-led and British-backed war on terror is only fuelling more violence by focusing on military solutions rather than on root causes, a think tank warned Wednesday.

"The 'war on terror' is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks," the Oxford Research Group said in its study, titled "Beyond Terror: The Truth About The Real Threats To Our World."

It said Britain and the United States have used military might to try to "keep the lid on" problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.

It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11,
2001.

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists," the report's authors argued.

It pointed out that the Islamist Taliban movement is now resurgent, six years after it was overthrown in 2001 by the US-led invasion in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

"Sustainable approaches" to fighting terrorism would involve the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and their replacement with a United Nations stabilisation force, it said.

It also recommended the provision of sustained aid for rebuilding and developing Iraq and Afghanistan as well as closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where most suspects are held without charge or trial.

And it called for a "genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be "disastrous," calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Iran insists the programme is peaceful, despite claims from Washington that it masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

The study also said the British government's plans to upgrade the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent could produce international instability.

"Nuclear weapon modernisation is likely to serve as a substantial encouragement to nuclear proliferation as countries with perceptions of vulnerability deem it necessary to develop their own deterrent capabilities," it said.

Just a couple days ago I mentioned:

They have seen the US bungle an occupation, further marginalize itself, trap itself in a quagmire in Iraq, then they see that the US leadership is so proud, so bullheaded that it cannot even come to terms with its failure and extricate itself and cut its losses. The lesson learned: We are so stupid we will fight an unnecessary war against a nation with little to do with the war on terror, then we are too stupid to leave due to pride.

Terrorist recruitment is up (as are overall terrorist incidents), the image of the US is at all time lows, its back at its full strength after its setbacks in Afghanistan, and it has a cadre of new, battle-hardened troops trained in Iraq and ready to spread
its knowledge to the surrounding regions. Yes, the radical groups are emboldened, and we have George W. Bush and his initial decision to invade Iraq to blame for that. The terrorists have been emboldened; they are not waiting for the US to pullout to reserve their judgment.

Frankly, I'm sure their study reads alot like some of my old term papers except theirs is more authoritative and in depth (and longer).

In any case, yet another reason to be depressed. Not in the clinical sense of course. Its just sometimes seeing what goes on, the mistakes made, the harm being done not only to the world, but to the country one loves so much because of poor leaders...it really eats at you inside. Sometimes I'd like nothing better than to stop hearing news.

Heh, in fact that is what I do from time to time. I often read books to read something not about current affairs though I often end up reading books about politics and foreign affairs anyways!!

Peace out folks, I'm going to go out and enjoy my day...screw politics and stuff....at least till tomorrow.

Damn Oyka!!! The Surge Again!! That's 3 Days in A Row!

I know it's beating a dead dog now, but new stuff comes out every day that I must comment about.


My computer froze as I was writing this post earlier today so I gave up (I had to find all the articles again....lazy). Obviously I decided to change my mind.

Before going into Pelosi's trip or the surge, I'd like to first share a bit of good news.
According to an AP-Ipsos poll released yesterday: Democratic-led Congress's Poll numbers have risen.

WASHINGTON - Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.

(snip)


Against that backdrop, the AP poll indicates the public wants Congress to push for an end to a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

Forty percent of those surveyed said they approve the job Congress is doing, up from 25 percent approval registered for the Republican majority in the weeks leading to last fall's elections. Disapproval of Congress totals 57 percent.

The public opinion split is identical on the issue of Democratic handling of Iraq - 40 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove.

Its not all milk and honey though, as you will see if you continue reading the article. Now you may be thinking: 40 percent is not that good, and you would be right. Its not good that only 40% of Americans approve of the Congress performance. Of course, in the relative context of Americans then support for the Republican-led Congress and to the Presidents own current approval numbers, it is good and the trend is one of a steadily increasing approval rating.

Most Americans liked the initial 100 Hours Agenda of the Democrats, but the issue foremost in the minds of Americans is Iraq -- specifically, leaving it. I hate that I cannot find the actual polling data and must rely on second-hand news accounts but ap-ipsos makes you pay for that kind of privilege (no thanks).

It is definitely no coincidence that the Congress's approval ratings have begun to rise around the time that it (mainly Democrats) started introducing binding, substantive resolutions with the aim of bringing back our soldiers from Iraq. There must be others factors at play as well I assume; the 100 Hours legislation, the increased pressure and oversight the new Congress is undertaking etc...Yet Iraq is likely the major factor.


Let this be a lesson for the Democrats: The American people like it when you get tough with the President and when you actually stand up and try with conviction to get us out of the Iraqi mess. Lets see some more and those poll numbers are sure to keep going up.

Now, as promised, on to the Surge.


The NY Times of April 8th ran a piece that attempts to asses whether the Surge has been a success (at least so far)


BAGHDAD, April 8 — Nearly two months into the new security push in Baghdad, there has been some success in reducing the number of death squad victims found crumpled in the streets each day.


And while the overall death rates for all of Iraq have not dropped significantly, largely because of devastating suicide bombings, a few parts of the capital have become calmer as some death squads have decided to lie low.

But there is little sign that the Baghdad push is accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. There has been no visible move toward compromise on the main dividing issues, like regional autonomy and more power sharing between Shiites and Sunnis.


For American troops, Baghdad has become a deadlier battleground as they have poured into the capital to confront Sunni and Shiite militias on their home streets. The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period, though it has stayed roughly the same over all, decreasing in other parts of the country as troops have focused on the capital.


American commanders say it will be months before they can draw conclusions about the campaign to secure Baghdad, and just more than half of the so-called surge of nearly 30,000 additional troops into the country have arrived.


As I mentioned in my previous post, sectarian violence is down although overall violence is on the rise. In fact, the numbers run counter to this article as well because they show that US & UK casualties are up as well as Iraqi civilian casualties.

This article is similar to others I've cited in that they attribute some of the decrease in certain types of violence to the insurgents "lying low"; essentially following what happens when a large new tactics are unrolled.

Lay low for awhile, observe the new tactic, adapt, counterattack.

What baffles me is the level of violence still present even as the insurgents are supposedly "laying low."


Whats worse, the Shia militia of Muqtada al-Sadr has called of its truce with the US forces and is calling for its leader is calling on members to attack US forces.


The last thing this already failing Surge needed was for the large and powerful Shia militia of al-Sadr to join the fray.

And, as the Times article above notes; the supposed goal of fostering an environment that brings together the political factions of the various sectarian groups, is not (at least to date) working. A political solutions is still a ways off on many issues of contention.
-------
But its not all seriousness in regards to the surge: Robert Farley of Lawyers, Guns and Money, points out a hilarious (and sad) faulty process of the mind among many right wingers that produces this:

Captain Ed:

Moqtada al-Sadr has decided to finally acknowledge that the surge strategy in Baghdad will undermine the basis of his power in Iraq, and has ordered the Mahdi Army to resist American and Iraqi forces trying to put him out of business.

Remember now; if the Mahdi Army lies low, then the Surge is working. If the Mahdi Army fights back, then the Surge is working. If the Mahdi Army has already dissolved, the Surge is working. If Sadr cooperates, the Surge is working. If he runs, the Surge is working. If he orders attacks, the Surge is working. It's magical, this Surge; no matter what happens, the evidence demonstrates that the Surge is working. It can't fail! Any behavior taken by anyone in Iraq is a positive by-product of the Surge. I mean, sure, the Surge hasn't dented American casualty rates or Iraqi casualty rates for the country as a whole, but that also is evidence that it's working; the enemy is clearly desperate, which is why he's attacking us. I'm glad it's not my job to manufacture this tripe.


LOL!!! The mental gymnastics some people will go to in order to continue believing something!! I salute Mr. Farley on the many who frequent the right-wing blogosphere in order to see what idiocy they often spout...I can contend with opposing ideas (hell I used to have a Republican roommate who very often talked politics with me), I just can't stand some of the idiocy that passes for blogging among high profile members of the right blogsphere.

Trust me, this incident above is 1 incident of hundreds from this same guy. I'll leave it to people like Mr. Farley.

That's all for today. Bye folks!

The Roundup: "Naughty Pelosi," and the "Succesful" Surge

It’s a pretty dreary Saturday morning (which I like sometimes) and I'm in a pretty chipper mood. Why? Well, first, no hangover (I do have an upset stomach though), second, I have quite a few articles to share and the time to add my take without worrying about going somewhere. Ah, spring break...[Editors Note: I started writing on Saturday, but events have caused it so that I barely finished Sunday evening]

Anyways lets start this thing with the ongoing fake brouhaha over Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East.

Have the GOP and conservatives somehow come to their senses or spontaneously grow some marginally functioning "conscience" that makes them think twice about further repeating hypocritical talking points? Have they seen the light and realized their error?

Well, short answer: no. It’s certain that they knew the hypocrisy of their attacks all along. This is politics after all, and politics is often about having the fucking balls to lie and feign outrage with a straight face.

It continues (Raw Story), even if many more people in the press are seeing this talking point for the crap that it is.

In my previous post, I noted the hypocrisy in attacking Pelosi for visiting President Assad when a Republican legislative delegations did the same only days earlier, but the hypocrisy doesn't end there as many in the blogosphere have come to realize.

Apparently, the GOP and its GOP Speaker (Newt Gingrich) during the Clinton days were quite fond of visiting competing nations as well.

That is where the similarities end though. Unlike Speaker Pelosi who did not seek to undermine or contradict the President by pushing for different policies (promoting the same messages of disarming terror groups and pushing for help stabilizing Iraq), the GOP was very open about directly undermining and contradicting President Clintons foreign policy when meeting with leaders, even going as far as suggesting that these nations forgo dealing with Clinton and instead deal directly with Congress. Now, that is a breach.

Glenn Greenwald with a good catch (lexis nexus likely helped):

This is, of course, totally different than the right-wing outrage scandal de jour:

New York Times, March 31, 1997 -- reporting on a trip to China by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one week after Vice President Al Gore's trip:

Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.

As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.

Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"

He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''

Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.

Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .

Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.

The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan.

Several days later, Gingrich's remarks in China led to this -- New York Times, April 4, 1997:

China admonished the United States today to speak with one voice on foreign policy and accused Newt Gingrich of making ''improper'' statements on Washington's commitment to defend Taiwan from any military attack by the mainland.

The criticism was made by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Shen Guofang, who earlier this week had expressed basic satisfaction with remarks made by Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, during a three-day visit to China.

The visit followed Vice President Al Gore's first trip to Beijing. Both men spoke on issues of contention between Washington and Beijing, but Mr. Gingrich's remarks were noteworthy for their directness and for exceeding the normal State Department formulations on American commitments to Taiwan.

China's decision to criticize Mr. Gingrich came after he traveled to Taiwan on Wednesday and met with President Lee Teng-hui.

Former Republican Speaker of the House Gingrich, one of those no doubt bitching about Pelosis’s current behavior, is guilty of actually undermining the Clinton administrations own stated foreign policy in regards to Taiwan and China. It used language much more inflammatory and…direct lets say, than the more ambiguous promises of “military assistance” that was US policy at the time.

It may seem like there is little distinction but believe me, wording and tenor of the wording does have a drastic effect on how things are perceived. The point is though, as the last bolded part points out; Gingrich made statements that were at odd with official policy, something which Speaker Pelosi did not do during her recent trip. Yet some Republicans seem to have “amnesia” on this issue.

Of course, not all Republicans are guilty of this hypocrisy nor are they staying silent about the attacks on the Speaker.

Republican Senator Arlen Specter gives “Independent” Senator Joe Liberman (jeez I fucking hate this guy) a proper smackdown on the issue of dealing with opponents, plus you’ll see Liberman dodge the issue of the lack of Syrian involvement with attacks on us.

Sen. Specter makes the proper point about relations with “bad” nations

SPECTER: I believe that Assad can be negotiated with. I’ve made 14 trips there, Wolf, in the last two decades, and have been able to be helpful in a number of situations that I can document. And I think opening discussions with Syria are very, very important, and I’d rather Condoleezza Rice did it, but if not, it’s up to Speaker Pelosi and Arlen Specter and others.

But the rest of the exchange is illuminating:

BLITZER: What about Senator Lieberman, what do you think?

LIEBERMAN: I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

BLITZER: But they had nothing to do with 9-11.

LIEBERMAN: But they have — but let me tell what you they have to do with what we’re into now. The Bashir Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today. Syria has been implicated in the assassination of a very strong popular Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is supporting Hezbollah, which is trying to unseat our ally, Senora, in Lebanon. Syria is supporting the terrorist group Hamas against our allies in the Fatah Palestinian movement, and of course, Israel. The administration, in all fairness — people in Washington should know, if they don’t know, the administration has been trying in many ways, in diplomatic discussions with Syria since 9-11, to get Assad to change his behavior and he has not. When Nancy Pelosi goes there, she sends a message of disunity. She legitimizes the Syrian goverment.

BLITZER: So I assume you disagree with Senator Specter’s decision. I want Senator Specter to respond. Why do you think Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, is wrong?

SPECTER: I believe in the maxim, hold your friends close and your enemies closer. President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the evil empire, and immediately thereafter undertook negotiations with them. Look, Assad is not a boy scout, but we have to deal with him. he’s there. In my conversation with him, I think there are ways to get him to stop arming Hezbollah and to stop arming Hamas. They came on the brink of a solution to the Golan Heights in 1995 and again in the year 2000. That was done by active negotiation that President Clinton engaged in. So there are ways to move through it, and to isolate them has not been successful.

Notice first how Senator Liberman tries to tie Syria in with the 9/11 attacks in order to paint Syria as a nation that not only can we not negotiate with, we should not (ethically) negotiate with them because it only gives the Syrian government legitmacy.

A quick fact for Senator Liberman: The Syrian government, as led by Bashar al-Assad is a legitimate government. We may not like it and may be angered at many of its activities including many that the Senator mentioned.

But as Senator Specter points out (I’m sure I’ve mentioned it a couple times), it is the most important to have diplomatic relations and talks with ones adversaries, and with nations one deems “bad.”

What Liberman is arguing is that because Syria is “bad” – listing several reasons why – we should not talk with them because it rewards bad behavior with legitimacy. But what Mr. Liberman does not understand is that if the United States does not talk with Syria, it de facto ensures that Syria will continue and will see no incentive to change those very policies that the United States sees as “bad.” Unless you want war, and I don’t think most sane people do.

Senator Specter further notes that when talks and negotiations had commenced in the past, it had come very close to bringing the Syrians to stop the very behavior that we think is so bad.

If we want Syria to stop funding Hezbollah and arming Hamas, a negotiated solution of give and take can achieve that (possibly). Refusing to talk only ensures that it will continue 100%.

If we could negotiate with the “Evil Empire” (USSR), what stops us from talking to a small secular dictatorship in the Middle East?
---------
Now moving on to Iraq, the situation is not looking all to good at this point.
MKS, a DailyKos diarist, using casualty numbers from icasualties.org, finds that the surge has not been successful in reducing overall US or Iraqi casualties in Iraq overall.

Deaths of U.S. & UK Troops
2007 2006
Jan 83 62
Feb 80 55
Mar 81 31
Deaths of Iraqi civilians and military
2007 2006
Jan 1802 779
Feb 1531 846
Mar 1889 1092

In essence, what one finds is a surprising increase in overall deaths and violence in Iraq since the surge has been implemented, a conclusion that runs counter to many claims of progress stemming from the surge.

Even some war correspondents like CNN’s Michael Ware (who opposes any immediate US pullout of Iraq) think that many, including John McCain’s characterization of the surge as “working” is wrong.

CNN transcript via Think Progress

BLITZER: Sen. John McCain suggests that is crackdown is already working. I asked him about that in the last hour.

[BLITZER CLIP]: Here’s what you told Bill Bennett on his radio show on Monday. “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today. The U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq.”

Everything we hear if you leave the so-called Green Zone, the international zone, and you go outside of that secure area, relatively speaking, you’re in trouble if you’re an American.

[McCAIN CLIP]: That’s where you ought to catch up on things, Wolf. General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media. But I know for a fact that much of the success we’re experiencing, including the ability of Americans in many parts. Not all, we have a long, long way to go. We’ve only got two of the five brigades here to go into some neighborhoods in Baghdad in a secure fashion.

BLIZTER: Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate speaking here in The Situation Room within the past hour. Let’s go live to Baghdad right now. CNN’s Michael Ware is standing by. Michael, you’ve been there for four years, you’re walking around Baghdad on a daily basis. Has there been this improvement that Sen. McCain is speaking about?

WARE: Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road. Is Baghdad any safer? Sectarian violence, one particular type of violence, is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.

And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.

And this is before his famous stroll in a Baghdad market that was “safe,” when he forgot to mention that he was backed up by 300 troops 5 helicopters, armored vehicles and warnings of lethal force if one got to close…….Yeah, just a normal stroll down “safe” Baghdad.

Yet there are other consequences of the surge that are just now emerging. The attempted crackdown on (Shia) al-Sadr militias and members has caused the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to resume calls for attacks on US soldiers. There has been a more or less truce between al-Sadr and the US but that could be gone now.

The situation could get a lot rougher for the US troops due to this turn of events. US troops have had their hands full contending with the Sunni insurgent groups and with the Sunni Al-Qaeda elements; it’s safe to assume that it can only get that much worse with the large Shia militia of al-Sadr resuming its attacks on US soldiers.

BAGHDAD - The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.

In the statement, al-Sadr — who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government — also encouraged his followers to attack only American forces, not fellow Iraqis.

"God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them — not against the sons of Iraq," the statement said, in an apparent reference to clashes between al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fighters and Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad. "You have to protect and build Iraq."

The U.S. military on Sunday announced the deaths of four American soldiers, killed a day earlier in an explosion near their vehicle in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. The province has seen a spike in attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces since the start of a plan two months ago to pacify the capital. Officials believe militants have streamed out of Baghdad to invigorate the insurgency in areas just outside the city.

So add a large and powerful Shia militia into the mix of an already failing surge and you get the beginnings of a huge clusterfuck…on top of an already pre-existing clusterfuck. Sigh.

At the heart of the failure of the surge is that the insurgents and others have simply adapted to the new surge. There are less sectarian killings in Baghdad yet other types of killings are up in Baghdad. Insurgents and others often are just temporarily relocating to regions outside Baghdad, spreading the violence to other places in Iraq, while at the same time observing the tactics of the new surge and coming up with ways to counter it.

It’s a horrible situation all around, and many Democrats (myself included), Independents, and some Republicans would like to see our involvement end soon. They want to at least see some solid timetable for our exit.

The opposing camp answers that pulling out will be bad for the US and it will only cause the terrorists to follow us back home…somehow. I don’t exactly understand the logic. No doubt our exit will have consequences, and that an Iraqi civil war will intensify with our exit, but it is in the US interest to leave. The conflict is mainly between sectarian groups, and those are not likely to follow the US, they are going to stay and fight the other side. Al-Qaeda might move on, no doubt better trained, more veteran, and possessing more sophisticated recruits than prior to the war.

In any case, the administration makes the faulty assumption that war in Iraq somehow prevents terror attacks here, when there is no way even a successful Iraq conflict would have done much in that area. A bungled war, on the other hand, has proven to be a boon for terrorist organizations in terms of recruits, propaganda, tactics, and sophistication.

That is the unforeseen consequence of initiating this war: We created a new terrorist live-action training camp and the tactics developed and developing here already are being put to use by other terrorist groups worldwide.

But you cannot blame those who want a US pullout for that unfortunate fact, blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who initiated this war and then bungled it totally.

McClatchy Newspapers William Douglas spoke with many military and diplomatic analysts and found that the dangers of a US pullout are at best overblown.

WASHINGTON - It’s become President Bush’s mantra, his main explanation for why he won’t withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq anytime soon.

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

The line, which Bush repeated Wednesday in a speech to troops at California's Fort Irwin, suggests a chilling picture of warfare on American streets.

But is it true?

Military and diplomatic analysts say it isn't. They accuse Bush of exaggerating the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland.

(snip)

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

(snip)

"The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

There are repercussions to this war. Where I think some analysts err, is that they mistakenly believe that radical organizations and other enemies of the US are waiting for the US to pullout to “be emboldened.” They say, “If we leave, we will embolden the terrorists.”

I say: “Are you mad?!! Do you think they haven’t already been emboldened!!?” Do you think they are reserving their judgment until the end!!

They have seen the US bungle an occupation, further marginalize itself, trap itself in a quagmire in Iraq, then they see that the US leadership is so proud, so bullheaded that it cannot even come to terms with its failure and extricate itself and cut its losses. The lesson learned: We are so stupid we will fight an unnecessary war against a nation with little to do with the war on terror, then we are too stupid to leave due to pride.

Terrorist recruitment is up (as are overall terrorist incidents), the image of the US is at all time lows, its back at its full strength after its setbacks in Afghanistan, and it has a cadre of new, battle-hardened troops trained in Iraq and ready to spread its knowledge to the surrounding regions.

Yes, the radical groups are emboldened, and we have George W. Bush and his initial decision to invade Iraq to blame for that. The terrorists have been emboldened; they are not waiting for the US to pullout to reserve their judgment.