Washington File

To Wa'el Darwish from Montreal:

While no doubt corruption runs amok in Iraq - and has since the Persian empire fell - you are painting a simplistic picture of the reality in Iraq today.

First - the sectarian evolved in Iraq when Saddam's regime fell. I say evolved, because it was always there under Saddam as well - but was FREE to evolve.

So yes, there are some sectarian cronies in various parts of the government. Yes, now and then, they participate as cover for acts of violence.

But that is not the majority - and you stating otherwise is just blatantly propaganda.

Iraq is a country not held hostage by the Americans - but by sectarian terror factions whom are too ignorant to realize they do not need to fight for power - as its guaranteed under their new constitution. Unfortunately, they don't trust themselves to be civil to one another.

So while most of the deaths are not Americans and not Al Qaeda, but warring Sunni and Shi'ite extremist factions fighting over control for oil profits - the media has focused on this as it evolved.

As far as the American bases - we still have quite a few in Germany as well. The Germans haven't suffered because of them have they?

Reading comments in Henry's Chatroom is always for me interesting and amusing. The opinions expressed although monotonous in their anti-American content I think reflect the feelings of Canadians and as such are worth reading. However when Russell Hicks says he has noticed "the US media will not allow any negative comments about President Bush" I have to call Bull...t. If Mr Hicks is unable to find negative comments he is either not looking or living in a cave somewhere. Bush has been called everything from a drug-taking dumb cluck fratboy religous fanatic to a politican so clever he was able to convince even more clever people (Hillary Clinton etc;) to sign on to his war. Mr. Hicks, look again.

I always enjoy your comments.

It seems-to me - that in the last few years- maybe after 911- US media will not allow any negative comments about President Bush. Is this due to a concentration of media commpanies under few owners? The analyis pre war was really deficient. Any dissent seemed to be met with dismissal or such.

Thank You

Russell Hicks

Could it be any clearer that Bush and Co. are holding American troops in Iraq as financial hostages? Pay up or the troops die? How low can Bushies go?

Harper has learned much from Bush about extorting support for his war on Afghanistan by holding Canadian troops as patriotic hostages. The ransom message could be written: "Support our troops in Afghanistan, right or wrong, or they will die in Afghanistan like shamed orphans."

SteelcitySteve

Henry,

I would ask you not use the word "liberal" to describe the Washington Post. The editorial page under Fredd Hiatt has been very sympathetic to neo-conservative views for several years now.

Granted, it is technically "more liberal" than the cult owned Washington Times, but that's like having a better memory than Alberto Gonzales or more honest than Scooter Libby - not a high bar to cross.

Ryan:

While I sympathize entirely with your views, I wonder if the blinking democrats do not portend a much more bleak future: namely another Republican presidency. Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Dem nomination, she will have a difficult time convincing chary American voters not only that a woman can be president (despite the fact that the Bush years should prove conclusively that the capacity for poor leadership is gender neutral) but that a female Democrat can deal competetently with the never-ending war. Obama's inexperience and his own struggle against entrenched prehudice will similarly handicap him.

I want to add further to the discussion re. the misinformation in the West about sectarian violence. I agree with Mr. Darwish and others that it is the American occupation that is fomenting sectarian strife (divide and conquer, it's in the old Imperial playbook). Almost all Iraqi's want the US out, now. They are united in that, from Kurd to Sunni to Shia. The Iraqi government is a puppet regime (remember the Shah of Iran?, that's patently obvious to any informed observer. If the US had any interest in democracy at all in Iraq, they would heed the desires of the Iraqi people. Something like 80% of Iraqi's feel the Americans are there for oil. They are more informed than the American people. Most of the almost 700,000 dead Iraqi's are due to American military actions directly, not sectarian violence. It's a shame one doesn't get that info from the propaganda mill that is the U.S. corporate press.

To Mr. Jeffrey in Vancouver,
Your analysis was great You've touched the reality. There is a minor thing I want to add because the media in North America do not write about it on purpose. The Iraqi Sunni and Shi’ite do not hate each other.They want to go back and neighbour each other. In the refuge land they are living as they were living before the invasion in Iraq. They love each other, no difference between Shi’ite and Sunni. Millions of Shi’ite are married to Sunni. How can be a sectarian?
When the Sunni family leaves the Shi’ite neighbourhood in Iraq; they give their house keys to their Shi’ite neighbour because they trust him. And visa versa. There are Shi’ite Kurds and Sunni Kurds. No body talk about them! They are living together in peace until now! If the American occupation policy moves to the Kurds area they will fight each other! What we see now is a certain Shi’ite group who attack and kills. Those who are the followers of those are in the government ruling according to the American constitution. The majority of the Shi’ite does not accept that. On the other hand, there are different groups of Sunni who fight and kills for their different point of views. The majority of the Sunni do not agree with them. But, and it is a big but, the majority of Iraqis resist the occupation and assist every body who fight the occupation.
Those groups who are killing the civilians are protected by the government police. The sectarian came to Iraq with the invasion and the American constitution. The government of Iraq is not representing the Iraqi people. It represents the American occupation. That is why they do not dare to go outside the green zone in Baghdad. The Americans are not worried about the victims if they leave! They started the war to stay in Iraq for ever! That is why they have built seven permanent bases in Iraq.

"It is racist and shortsighted to condemn the Iraqis to a pre-mature(sic) American pullout."

Is it not also racist and shortsighted to think that the Iraqi people - actual living human beings(!) - are thoroughly incapable of dealing with their own problems and deciding for themselves how to lead their lives? That they just don't know any better and that the West (actually *partly* responsible for the whole mess) somehow holds the moral and evolutionary high ground and is solely qualified to free the Iraqi people from themselves? They are no less human, just as we are no 'more' human.
The notion of Iraq as a single unified country is a historical fiction anyway, so why must the people be forced together into a situation many don't want? If the country should have to be split *back* up into separate territories, why would that necessarily be a bad thing, especially if the violence, killings, hatred and ethnic tensions could be abated?
I don't suggest that separate countries is the only and best solution because it's not up to me and it shouldn't be up to the West either. I also don't think for a second that there are any quick, easy fixes for the Middle East's complex problems and the long, complicated history that has brought it to where it is today. The reasons for going to war, for a unilateral, pre-emptive strike continue to be obscured and changed to suit the times, but who are we to decide for someone else, let alone an entire population, what is good for them such that they can't decide for themselves?

Sure, there will always be violence, extremism and intolerance but where *aren't* those things among humans ANYWHERE?

Even here in the US, there are more than two parties on most ballots in most states. And a few of the parties have been against the "war" since before it began. Maybe the admittedly worthy Mr. Olbermann, and others, could give something not laughably distant from equal time to us? The voters, the audience, might want to know. . . .



John Anthony La Pietra
Elections Co-ordinator
Green Party of Michigan


P.S.
I put "war" in quotes because it still hasn't been legally declared yet. Any more than Shrub has been legally elected yet. (So can we impeach someone who hasn't been elected? Well, if enough people believe he was elected, they can also believe him getting impeached.)

Well, my main point is that the Democrats seem afraid of being what they would call "mean-spirited", but unless they are ruthless in support of their own positions, and the identity of their own party, how can they expect to succeed? If they won't, then the Republicans won't hesitate to "define" them in the worst possible terms. Did anyone *not* know this bill would be vetoed before it even settled on Bush's desk. Of course not - the point was to make a point about how congress was being pushed aside, and about the misuse of "emergency" executive powers, etc. - but unless you make sure to state clearly & frequently that was the point, how would anyone who doesn't follow politics by habit even know that? Did anyone really think that troops would be left stranded in the desert without ammo? No, of course not. Yet, it seems Republicans got to run around unchallenged saying that's what the Democrats wanted, shaping the debate with claims that were ridiculous and yet somehow stuck. Why? Because even if the truth is on your side, you still have to actually go out an speak it - relentlessly.
Anyways, yes, I will agree with some others who have pointed out that there's a lot more to the Iraq issue than whether or not US troops "officially" pull out soon or not, many strategic issues, that don't seem to get discussed in the media.

Marcus says: "the fact remains that an American pull-out will only accelerate the deaths of civilians."

How in the world is that a "fact"? Just like the WMDs were a "fact"? Or is this just more propaganda swallowed whole?

Besides the point that things that have yet to happen cannot be "facts", your statement is not even a good "prediction". In fact it is horribly wrong. It is based on misleading sound-bites spewed out by the war-mongering politicians.

Get this Marcus: US troops are not stopping violence in Iraq; they are causing it. Why? Because the majority of Iraqis support attacks on US troops - that is what's driving most of the violence in Iraq - hatred of the occupiers.

The US must leave Iraq, and let Iraqis root out the real terrorists among them (the ones attacking civilians).

Self-determination is the only way to peace in Iraq.

Zsolt Sary
Kamloops, BC

I congratulate President Bush for his stance, undoubtedly, exposing Democratic Party as academic! No doubt, Mr. Bush knows how the game is played. Democrats, on the other hand, confirmed that that they have no real vision, not to talk about solutions to arising issues!

Democrats mostly complain for the sake of complaining, without merits or real concern, playing the prevailing winds. Shame on them!

Jerry's comment hits the nail on the head; regardless of whether the Iraq war was a huge mistake (I believe it was), the fact remains that an American pull-out will only accelerate the deaths of civilians.

Shia-Sunni violence remains bottled up, relative to what will come should the US leave and remove the fetters to the genocidal ambitions of the radicals on each side. Saddam's military / police power prevented it from manifesting in the past, just as American power prevents it now. The Democratic bill was a candy-coated license for Americans to stand by and watch the annihilation of millions of people on TV.

The original motives of the war are relevant; This must not be forgotten and the culprits must be held accountable, yet two wrongs don't make a right. It is racist and shortsighted to condemn the Iraqis to a pre-mature American pullout. These Democrats are saying that the blood of Iraqi civilians is worth only a fraction of American blood and money.

...I won't even begin to discuss the impact that their bill has had on jihadist morale worldwide.

To expand on David's point below, some politicians ("right vs left" is irrelevant) use war as a tool for maintaining power. The rationale for starting a war need only hold up long enough for the armed forces to actually engage, then it can be discarded or changed depending on what provides the greatest political advantage to the government at any given moment.

War intimidates and divides the political opposition, as we are seeing in the U.S. Congress and the Canadian parliament, and it divides the populace along the lines of "loyalty to the troops." Given that armed forces personnel have families and communities at home, this divide can become especially rancorous and irrational.

For governments such as those led by Harper and Bush, which fear intelligent, informed discussion, war and its attendant fog are powerful means for defining and controlling the national debate. The lives of our soldiers and foreign nationals are merely pawns in a cynical domestic political game--an idea so outrageous that well-meaning people cannot bring themselves to believe it, and so put off dealing with the real questions before them.

The Democrats in the U.S. Congress were unlikely to prevail once George Bush exercised his veto, since the cards will remain stacked in his favor as long as American soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. George Bush knew that when he started the war, and Stephen Harper knew it when he identified his party and government with Canada's now apparently open-ended mission in Afghanistan.

The war promoters are right: the rest of us have become soft--not because we shrink from war when it becomes necessary (neither war was), but because we cannot bring ourselves to deal sternly with our power-obsessed leaders when they divide us in order to rule us.

The Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq because they believed in it. When they discovered the defeat, they wanted to run away.
The American peoples punished Bush in the 2006 election, but they did not endorse the Democrats.
The Democrats and the Republicans are two faces for one COIN.

Enough with the Republicrats!

Next time vote for the Democans!

The Democrats took their shot and passed their bill, which Bush vetoed, so they've done their job. Bush and co. own this war, why would the Democrats now jump in with both feet and do something foolish like cut off funding for the troops? If they did that then Bush could blame them down the road for the disaster that Iraq has turned into.

The Democrats are politicians first and foremost. They want power in '08, and due to the current situation in Iraq they are on course to assume a lot of power in '08. Bush and co. wrecked Iraq, strengthed Iran, destroyed the US's credibilty all over the world -- they've basically made the biggest US foreign policy blunder perhaps in their history.

The Democrats have nothing to gain by trying to take ownership of the war at this stage. Democrats surrender? Hardly... at this stage they are just going to sit back and be patient and let Bush and co. try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The real problem the Dems have is that Bush and the Republicans in Congress keep harping on the mantra that time lines would harm the troops. This is nothing more than a ploy. If the Dems actually passed a bill with time lines, the Reps would hammer them in the next election about failing to protect the troops. The voters who believe this will be the ones to blame.
You can see Harper using this tactic about our troops in Afghanistan..

What has not made sense to me since the Iraq war became this long-drawn out land war is why the Department of Defense does not have to develop a proper budget. Emergency budgets in the U.S. are supposed to be used to fund unanticipated troop needs due to a temporary foreign "intervention". Four years in and Iraq is by no means a temporary intervention. By all appearances the U.S. will be sending their sons and daughters to Iraq for the foreseeable future. As a result, surely the Department of Defense should be required to budget troop requirements appropriately for the year. One does not see the Department of the Interior applying for extra billions of dollars each quarter. In fact if the DOI did so they would probably be laughed out of both the Congress and Senate.

2008 is no lock for the Democrats. Republicans lost in 06 because they did nothing about the millions of illegals essentially taking over whole areas of the southern US. This, and not the Iraq war is why we have the Pelosis and Murthas in charge today. They take their orders from George Soros and his MOVE ON (surrender now) kook fringe. They have proven a weak, squabbling and easily divided bunch and not the kind that Americans elect to the highest office. PS. It is fanatical Muslim jihadists who are killing the Iraqi people not the US soldiers. If the US pulled out tomorrow it is doubtful this killing would stop.

That bill was not just going to establish deadlines for troop pullout from Iraq. It also contains funding for Katrina rebuilding, base housing, veteran's hospitals, and survivor's benefits, amongst other things.

The Democrats did not have the votes to override a presidential veto, which would certainly have been used on a bill with troop pullout deadlines.

Perhaps they blinked, or perhaps they actually gave a damn about the many American lives that required that funding, and whom a hardline stance would have left in dire straits. Perhaps it was a bit of both.

But it's rather disgusting that that aspect of the story has been largely untouched by media coverage. And all those so quick to rush to condemn or jeer them.

I'm not sure how genuine the 'withdrawal' talk is, really. What I think will happen is that the US will continue to attempt to get their proxy army (the Iraqi gov't army) up and running, which won't be successful, but will be advertised as such. Then they'll claim success, and announce troop level reductions. However, the 'military contractors' will be an increasing US force in Iraq. (If you know Roman history, think of Marius' privatization of the army, and where it led...) Meanwhile, the several HUGE and permanent bases that have been, and continue to be constructed in various locales, outside urban areas, will be staffed with US forces, particularly air force, as instruments of power projection. (call it 'production sharing agreement' insurance) The fact that these bases and the mercenaries, er sorry, 'contractors' aren't even discussed in this so-called national debate answers the question of whether US forces plan on leaving Iraq for the next few decades.
PS. Don from Mississauga, I believe it's closer to 700,000 dead Iraqis now, and counting.

The Democratic Party once again shows by it's actions that it is a party that means what it does, not what it says. Even when they are right, though probably for the wrong reasons, they lack the courage of their convictions, and fold like a cheap tent in a strong wind. We need to get out of Iraq and spend our money on our people and inner cities for a change. When Detroit looks as nice as Toronto or Ottawa, instead of Beirut after the civil war, the U.S. can start to waste it's money on other countries that don't like us again. In the meantime, let other countries police the world for the West, if they feel so inclined.

Odd that the lost lives in the interim seem to be so unimportant. The American soldiers killed and maimed, and the 200 to 1 Iraqi's likewise are not even worth mentioning. All for a pack of lies and stolen oil.

Dear BS, You make some very good points!

You write that "the Democrats seem almost afraid." Well, they don't "seem" afraid to me at all! They ARE afraid! They have shown their true selves again! And they are so very, very weak!

Like I said twice, commenting on Mr. Champ's previous blog article: America needs "strong leadership! America needs a strong leader!"

Strong leaders don't play games. They fight for what they SAY they believe in on behalf of those who can't, and on behalf of those who gave them their authority - because they believed what the leaders they voted for SAID! That's what strong leaders do! ALWAYS! They don't wait yet another year! NEVER!

Such weakness all around: The Republican leaders who will not stand up to their President, and the Democrat leaders who will not stand up to the Republicans.

Why? Because they are afraid of losing! And yet, I bet they tell their children, who are sad because they lost in sports or in some other human endeavor, that making the effort in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds is what matters the most. It's what builds character. It's what some day makes a strong leader!

The fools! The weaklings! And yet, they are the leaders of the most powerful nation in the history of humanity!

It's ALL so very counter-intuitive, when you really think about it, don't ya think?

Typical coward posturing politics. The Democrats don't want to be seen as being unsupportive of the troops so they lay down in the middle of the road and roll over yet again. Wait until '08 they say, wait for some fictional hero to rise up and begin making the decisions Americans went to the polls and gave them control of congress to make in the first place. These cowards don't deserve power: if this is the sort of leadership Americans can expect from their elected officials then heaven help them, because there's nothing there at all. They've given Bush and his cronies a pass, more young soldiers will die for nothing and the 100,000 and counting Iraqi dead will have died for nothing. Where they should have been looking at an impeachment of this president they have simply washed their hands and abrogated their responsibility to the voters. The honourable thing to do would be to resign en masse, however we can clearly see now that this bunch has no dignity to speak of.

Co-opting Bush's words regarding the UN, America faces a test, and Congress a difficult and defining moment. Are Congressional bills to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will Congress serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Wow, just when you think the Democrats finally rid themselves of the "chicken" streak they had before the Iraq war, they fall right back into it. They're so afraid of being perceived as afraid that they act as if they're afraid. Literally, they're still scared to say the Iraq war is wrong, that it was always wrong, and that it needs to end. That would take more perseverance than they seem to have. The "blatant bully" approach always works for the Republicans, no matter how ridiculous their positions, they know the other side is too scared to stand up to them for very long. It's very sad. Why would the Democrats give in? Why make political peace when so many real factors (like the Iraq war being a mistake) are obviously on the Democrats' side?
Sure, the Democrats don't have the numbers to overturn a veto and force an end to it, but that's not the point. They should have gone into the whole thing with the (very public) attitude of always knowing Bush would veto their bill, saying "all Bush has anymore is his executive powers, his credibility is gone, his war is a disaster". They should have just kept up the offensive, even after the bill was vetoed, targeted all of Bush's cronies, all of his policies. Again, I don't see the logic of backing down from a fight you are winning, the Democrats seem almost afraid of saying the things they need to say, or doing what they need to do.

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the Democrats were unable to force the hand of the White House. They did not have the numbers they needed to override a veto which means just that, Mr Bush has the final word.

However, by just raising the issue, by just having the vote, the Democrats have accomplished a significant task. They can claim something that their Commander-in-Chief lost long ago: the elusive moral high ground. It was a no-lose situation.

So, I agree with Nancy Pelosi. The real time for decision-making will come in November '08. How much do Americans want a change? If the Democrats keep playing it cool in the Congress while advancing their agenda, I'd surmise the people want it badly enough to elect a Democrat to the big house.