Buchanan: Petraeus ‘points to war with Iran.’
In a new column today, right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan writes, “The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.” Buchanan argues that by focusing on the “special groups” Iran is funding in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus’s testimony to Congress was “laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East”:
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has “fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups.”
These “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran’s Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government (the Green Zone) … causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.” […]
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, “Unchecked, the ’special groups’ pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.”
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general’s testimony is forcing Bush’s hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing “special groups” to “murder” Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Petraeus rules out run for president.
In a new interview with NBC News set to air tonight, Gen. David Petraeus rules out a run for elected office:
WILLIAMS: General, will you ever hold political office in this country?
PETRAEUS: Never. And I’ve tried to say that on a number of occasions. Some folks have reminded me of a country western song that says “what part of no, don’t you understand?”
Hear that? It’s the sound of K-Lo and Bill Kristol’s hearts breaking.
Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
Gen. David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress this week that he is recommending to President Bush that the United States “pause” the draw down of troops in Iraq this July for at least 45 days in order to assess the security situation there.
Bush has now accepted Petraeus’s recommendation, “leaving open the possibility that about 140,000 U.S. servicemen and women will still be in the war zone when the next president takes office.”
But there is one important decision-maker that Petraeus and Bush don’t seem to be listening to: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The AP reports that Maliki told Bush yesterday that he “disagrees” with Petraeus’s recommendation “citing the growing capabilities of Iraq’s own security forces”:
The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.
Bush actually agrees with Maliki. Last month, Bush said the Iraqi government’s offensive against Shi’ite militias in the southern city of Basra “shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge.”
Moreover, Bush has also said that if Maliki wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq, then “we would leave“:
BUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. […] We are there at their request. […] but if they were to make the request, we wouldn’t be there.
Bush has consistently expressed confidence in Maliki’s leadership and judgement saying he had seen “the strength of his character,” that he is a “strong leader,” and a “good guy” with “deep determination.”
If Bush has so much confidence in Maliki’s character and leadership abilities, then perhaps he should take his advice.
Crocker: Al Qaeda on Afghanistan-Pakistan border bigger threat than in Iraq.
Crocker: Al Qaeda on Afghanistan-Pakistan border bigger threat than in Iraq.
During this afternoon’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) forced Ambassador Ryan Crocker to acknowledge that al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region poses a larger threat than al Qaeda in Iraq:
SEN. BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region? … Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
Watch it:
The Wonk Room, Democracy Arsenal, and Spencer Ackerman have more.
Graham: Al Qaeda wants the U.S. to leave because we’ve been ‘kicking them all over Iraq.’
Graham: Al Qaeda wants the U.S. to leave because we’ve been ‘kicking them all over Iraq.’
Today during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) couldn’t contain his excitement over the progress in Iraq. In a moment reminiscent of President Bush’s overblown war rhetoric, Graham declared:
If you put a list of people who wanted us to leave, the number one group would be Al Qaida, because you’ve been kicking them all over Iraq.
Watch it:
Earlier in the day, Graham similarly told a Vets for Freedom rally: “You want to know who wants you to come home more than anybody? Al Qaeda because you’re kicking their ass.”
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Crocker: Iraqi Parliament May Ratify Long-Term Agreement — But U.S. Congress Can’t
Crocker: Iraqi Parliament May Ratify Long-Term Agreement — But U.S. Congress Can’t
In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship.” Recently, the administration has refused to say whether it is “a constitutional requirement” to “consult with Congress…in the commitment of U.S. forces in a battle zone.”
In today’s hearing, Ambassador Ryan Crocker reiterated that the Bush administration does not plan to bring the long-term agreement to Congress first. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) asked whether Maliki’s administration is consulting with the Iraqi Parliament on the agreement:
CLINTON: Do you anticipate that the Iraqi governrment would submit such an agreement to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?
CROCKER: The Iraqi government has indicated it will bring the agreement to the Council of Representatives. At this point, it is not clear, at least to me, whether that will be for a formal vote or whether they will repeat the process they used in November with the Declaration of Principles in which it was simply read to the members of the Parliament.
CLINTON: Does the administration plan to submit this agreement to our Congress?
CROCKER: At this point, senator, we do not anticipate the agreements will have within them any elements would require the advice and consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement.
Watch it:
In fact, as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway has noted, the agreement permits U.S. and coalition forces combat authority, and hence must be approved by Congress first “either as a treaty or as a congressional-executive agreement.”
Bush and his allies in Congress frequently joke that the Iraqi government is a model that the U.S. Congress should follow. In this case, the administration should heed its own words.
Petraeus Hedges On Whether Iraq War Makes U.S. Safer: ‘It Can Only Be Answered By History’
Petraeus Hedges On Whether Iraq War Makes U.S. Safer: ‘It Can Only Be Answered By History’
In last September’s hearing, Gen. Petraeus was asked whether the Iraq war makes the U.S. safer. “I don’t know,” Petraeus responded. Today, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) pressed Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker again. “Is all this sacrifice bringing about a more secure America?” he asked.
But Petraeus — seemingly glancing at his notes — did not directly answer. “There is no longer a ruthless dictator in Iraq,” he said. “Ultimately, it can only be answered by history, once the outcome in Iraq has been determined. … I believe the more important question is at this point how to achieve our our important interests in Iraq.”
Warner, noticing Petraeus’s hedge, pressed again:
WARNER: It was a fairly simple question: does that translate into a greater security for those of us at home? … Can you now just tell us in simple language tell us yes it is worth it, and it is making us safer here at home?
PETRAEUS: Senator, I do believe it is worth it, otherwise I would have not accepted. … I took on the task of, the privilege of command of MNF-Iraq because I do believe that it is worth, and I do believe the interests there are of enormous importance, again, to our country, not just to the people of Iraq and the people of that region and the world.
When Warner asked Crocker the same question, Crocker praised efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), saying AQI has been “lessened.” “I do believe that makes America safer,” Crocker said. Watch it:
Petraeus and Crocker refused to admit that fighting in Iraq does nothing to decrease the threat from the global al Qaeda terrorist network. FBI Director Robert Mueller recently cited the “three-tiered threat” that al Qaeda poses to the West, but Iraq is not referenced in that analysis:
The top tier was the core of the organisation which had established new sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The middle tier was the most complex, consisting of small, self-directed groups like the London bombers of 7/7 who had some ties to al-Qaeda’s leadership. The bottom tier, said Mr Mueller, was made up of homegrown extremists who met on the internet instead of in foreign training camps.
Similarly, the New York Times reported today that fears of Iraq becoming a terrorist incubator “appear to be overblown,” as “the number of fighters going to Iraq [from Europe] has been extremely small,” according to French intelligence. But the longer the U.S. occupies Iraq, the danger that Iraq may become an incubator will increase.
McCain seems confused about al Qaeda again, suggests it’s a ’sect of Shi’ites.’
McCain seems confused about al Qaeda again, suggests it’s a ’sect of Shi’ites.’
During today’s hearing with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) questioned Petraeus on what he called “the major threat” of al Qaeda in Iraq. Coming on the heels of his recent confusion over the nature of al Qaeda, McCain today seemed to refer to al Qaeda as a “sect of Shi’ites”:
MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?
PETREAUS: No.
MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.
Watch it:
CQ’s Jeff Stein wrote, “Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.” McCain seemed to catch himself and correctly note that al Qaeda is a sect of Sunnis.
In the course of having a serious dialogue with our military leadership in Iraq about how Americans can formulate success going forward, John McCain stumbled on his words and corrected them immediately.
Petraeus’ September Report Will Be Written By The White House
Petraeus’ September Report Will Be Written By The White House
The Los Angeles Times reports that Gen. David Petraeus’ upcoming Sept. 15 report on Iraq will be authored by the White House:
Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.
In other words, the Sept. 15 report promises to be much like the July mid-term report which purported to show “satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 benchmarks.” A closer look into those claims revealed that the progress was purely White House spin. Yet, the report accomplished its primary objective of producing media reports which suggested that the overall picture in Iraq was “mixed.”
The White House has repeatedly employed Petraeus as a PR flack, using him to promote failing Iraq policies and the war czar nomination.
President Bush had previously said he would “respect the command structure” and not intercede in the Petraeus report:
I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my — with insisting that we get resources to them, but with — by respecting the command structure, I’m going to wait for David to come back — David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.
Apparently, Bush doesn’t plan to wait for a report; instead, he’ll have it drafted prior to Petraeus’ return. Markos writes: “Let me predict the future: The report: ‘Success!’ The interpretation: ‘Smashing success!’”