Recently in Iraq Category

Remember this story recounted by Digby about a seven-year-old girl's genital mutilation the next time someone tries to tell you that the situation in Iraq has improved so much.

Well, we now know that reality is not going to be a key part of Gov. Sarah Palin's foreign policy.

Yesterday she had the audacity to link the September 11 terrorist attacks to Iraq. As the Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut writes:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Yes. SINCE THE U.S.-LED INVASION. Not on September 11, 2001. Not before. Not while Saddam Hussein was in power.

In a sane world, voters would reject any ticket that would continue to push such talking points.

Via Democracy Arsenal, we see a troubling analysis on the current situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus:

Petraeus cited several areas of ongoing concern, including the postponement of provincial elections initially scheduled for this month, the disputed status of the northern city of Kirkuk, lingering ethno-sectarian conflicts, and questions surrounding the future of a local security force known as the Sons of Iraq. Petraeus cited several areas of ongoing concern, including the postponement of provincial elections initially scheduled for this month, the disputed status of the northern city of Kirkuk, lingering ethno-sectarian conflicts, and questions surrounding the future of a local security force known as the Sons of Iraq.

Why is this significant? As Ilan Goldenberg explains:

In other words there has been no political reconciliation and as a result the security gains have not been consolidated and the situation remains tenuous.

This is winning?

It's been 1,950 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Heck of a job, Mr. President.

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson made a complete fool of himself this morning, claiming that Al Franken is "actively push[ing] our culture toward vulgarity and viciousness."

Oh really now. The man who was George W. Bush's chief speechwriter, and who helped bring the world Dick Cheney, torture, extraordinary rendition, and the Iraq War (among other atrocities) is now lecturing others about vulgarity and viciousness in politics? This man dares to actively state a concern for "the cooperation and mutual respect necessary in a functioning democracy" after what he has helped to happen over the past seven years?

The Washington Post should be embarrassed to employ such a shallow and hypocritical thinker for its op-ed page.

Atrios does an excellent job, here and here, showing the incredible differences between what Mr. Gerson thinks is vulgar (Al Franken) and not vulgar (lots of dead civilians in Iraq, to take one example).

To say that Mr. Gerson's definitions are completely backward is an understatement.

Richard Clarke is correct: the people who lied to us and manipulated intelligence to justify this horrible war with Iraq must be held accountable. At a minimum, they need to admit what they have done. As Clarke suggests:

CLARKE: Well, there may be some other kind of remedy. There may be some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you’re forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.

Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grieviously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.

That last paragraph is really important to remember: this time, they have to be held accountable.

Federal budget expert Stan Collender rightly wonders what happened to $15 billion in Iraq -- money for which the Bush Administration cannot account:

But this story from Friday's Washington Post, which talks about $15 billion in spending on Iraq that can't be accounted for properly, or in some cases at all, shows that the other stage of federal budgeting -- implementation -- is similarly broken, not working properly, and...well...you certainly get this picture as well.

In fact, it appears as if virtually every procedure and law designed to prevent just this type of malfeasance was circumvented.

This spending was done in the midst of a national emergency and some of the usual safeguards couldn't be followed in the interest of national security and getting the job done quickly, right?

Nonsense. The Pentagon's own inspector general confirmed that this lack of concern for procedural safeguards was blatant and commonplace. That makes it hard to come to any conclusion other than that they were ignored rather than expedited or poorly executed.

It's also hard to come to any conclusion other than that the spending of taxpayer funds in Iraq bordered on, or actually was, simple and straightforward corruption.

Given the magnitude of the spending involved, Iraq may be the Bush administration's contribution to the biggest public corruption scandals of all time like Boss Tweed in New York, James Michael Curley in Boston, and Teapot Dome.

Yes, these are the people who believe they have a monopoly on preaching about fiscal responsibility.

It is time for some real investigations. For some people to be prosecuted. No more excuses.

War profiteering is not a meaningless crime. War corruption is not a meaningless crime. These kinds of actions can cost the lives of our brave soldiers in the field.

For how long must we tolerate such criminality?

It's been 1,850 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Media Matters for America's Eric Boehlert analyzes the media's apparent decision not to cover the Iraq War.

But here's the bottom line: News consumers' interest in Iraq remains relatively high, while news coverage has basically vanished. How's that for a disconnect?

As part of the analysis, Boehlert makes a stunning point about Nightline, a program founded, after all, to cover an important news event on a daily basis:

Last November, I noted that ABC's Nightline, its long-running signature news program, had essentially boycotted Iraq as a news story. I found that over an 18-week span, from mid-July through late November, Nightline aired approximately 230 separate news segments, only one of which was about events on the ground in Iraq. In the 17 weeks since then, Nightline has continued to look the other way, which means that over a nearly nine-month span, during which time more than 300 reports aired, Nightline has effectively ignored the war in Iraq as a news event.

It. Does. Not. Exist.

Just imagine what kind of uninspired effort ABC News would put forward if Iraq were not a "very important story."

This is nothing less than media malpractice. People should be fired for a failure like this.

Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. How is this not an important story?

It's been 1,800 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Heck of a job, Mr. President.

The problem is, of course, that Iraq and foreign policy are supposed to be Senator John McCain's strong points.

One wonders if the media members so in love with his purported straight talk will deign to ask him how both of these statements about Moqtada al-Sadr can be true.

From the Associated Press:

As of Sunday, March 23, 2008, at least 4,000 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,253 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

This local memorial, the Crosses of Lafayette, is about two miles from my house.

The Washington Post's Cameron Barr writes:

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

The general's comments appeared to be his sternest to date on Iraqis' failure to achieve political reconciliation. In February, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus was more encouraging. "The passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide," he said at the time.

Let us remember that the entire point of the surge -- the reason it was sold to the American people -- was to provide a space to allow the Iraqi government to meet these political objectives.

The "surge" has now been in effect for more than a year. Will it have to last John McCain's 100 years in order to get it to do what it was designed to do?

Are we really supposed to believe that Iraq is improving and everything is going great when no U.S. political or military leader can make an announced trip there, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can visit and be given the red-carpet treatment?

The supporters of our continued occupation of Iraq must really think we are idiots.

The magic counter in the right column reminds us that it has been 1,750 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

And just what has your administration done over the past 1,750 days, Mr. President?