Muqtada Sadr's office bombarded

Muqtada Sadr office bombarded

Sadr was prescient about what the surge would do in Sadr city. He is safely in Tehran until the surge subsides.


POL-IRAQ-SADR-OFFICE
Muqtada Sadr office bombarded

BAGHDAD, Feb 20 (KUNA) -- A joint force of the Iraqi Army and US troops Tuesday bombarded the office of Shiite leader Muqtada Al-Sadr in Al-Shula area, west of Baghdad, a security source told KUNA.

The source said some 14 military vehicles are now surrounding the office and Iraqi and US soldiers could be seen confiscating material and documents.

Muqtada Al-Sadr himself is out of the country over fears for his safety.

Rice criticizes failure to move against Shia militias

Obviously so far the surge is directed almost entirely against Sunnis. This is sure to please the Shia militias who can just lay low and not cause waves for a while and watch the Sunnis suffer.


Iraq Official: Rice Criticizes Crackdown
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, February 17, 2007


(02-17) 10:25 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Iraqi leaders Saturday that the Baghdad security operation needs to "rise above sectarianism" and noted that no U.S. or Iraqi forces have yet moved into the capital's major Shiite militia stronghold, an Iraqi official said.


The official, who was familiar with the discussions, said Rice told Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the initial stage of the crackdown, which began Wednesday, appeared to focus on Sunni areas and had left Sadr City, stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia, nearly untouched.


The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information to the media.


He said Rice stopped short of accusing the Iraqis of displaying pro-Shiite bias in the operation and said it appeared that the security crackdown was going well.


Top Sunni politicians have also complained that Sunni neighborhoods have been targeted for raids and searches while Sadr City and other Shiite militia hideouts have been spared.


She told the Iraqis that the operation must "rise above sectarianism" and that this was the "last chance for success," he said without elaborating.


The Iraqis, however, told her that the Mahdi Army and its leader Muqtada al-Sadr had been losing influence and were cooperating with authorities on security issues, the official said.


The Iraqis said they did not want to "waste our resources in a place that's stable," the official added.


He did not say how Rice responded.


Before the operation began, U.S. officers said privately that the Shiite-dominated security forces were resisting calls to move against al-Sadr's forces quickly, arguing that the main threat to stability came from Sunni insurgents.

Bush Burns Iraq while Democrats Fiddle

The Democrats seem willing to oppose Bush in any way as long as it does not actually stop him.



Democrats Sidestep Defunding Demands

by Aaron Glantz
Senior Congressional Democrats are brushing off questions about cutting off funding for the Iraq war, and indicate they will do little to forcefully stop President George W. Bush from sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

On Wednesday, after returning from a trip to Iraq, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sidestepped questions over whether she would try to scuttle Bush's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, calling it "the one last chance" that the U.S. war in Iraq will "succeed."

Likewise, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he would focus his energies on passing a bipartisan, symbolic resolution opposing the so-called "surge" – a move President Bush has already said he would ignore.

One non-binding measure that appears to be gaining traction is sponsored by a Republican, John Warner of Virginia, and asserts that while Congress "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment" U.S. troops, legislators should not cut off or reduce funding for the military presence in Iraq.

"Two years ago, it seemed pretty lonely. Now every politician wants to be seen on television saying something bad about President Bush's handling of the war," Dr. Rusti Eisenstadt, an activist and professor of U.S. history at Hofstra University, told IPS. "The key now is to get [Congress] to do something instead of hiding behind non-binding resolutions."

Activists are setting their sights on a request President Bush is likely to submit to Congress next week for an estimated 100 billion dollars more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Peace groups would like to see Congress vote against that measure, a move they see as more important than any progressive piece of legislation introduced in Congress this year.

"We are looking at a lot of things that are happening in the Congress right now, from a Senate resolution that opposes an escalation (sending more troops to Iraq) but will allow a war to continue, to other bills out there that talk about bringing the troops home and de-funding the war, but which George Bush can veto," said Nancy Lessing of the group Military Families Speak Out.

"The one thing that we see that can end this war is if Congress votes no money on the appropriation that's going to come before them," she added.

"Legislation is so that Congress has cover," added Michael McPherson, executive director of Veterans for Peace. "The bottom line is that we want the troops to come home and we need it to be defunded. All the other stuff is just a game."

Previous votes have been extremely lopsided, with the vast majority of the House and almost every member of the Senate supporting continued funding. Already, Congress has approved more than 380 billion dollars for the war in Iraq, according to a report from the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, a non-profit think tank specializing in issues of peace, justice and the environment.

Activists take some solace, however, in the fact that the Democrats' good showing at the polls in November means Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha now chairs a key House of Representatives committee that must approve the president's request.

Murtha, a decorated Marine Corps veteran with close ties to the military establishment, shocked many in Washington last year when he came out for a "redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq and said the presence of U.S. soldiers there has increased the level of violence in Iraq rather than calming it.

At a press conference this week, Murtha said he would not approve the latest request for 100 billion dollars in war funding without "extensive hearings" that are slated to begin Feb. 17.

"We're going to check every cent that is spent by the United States government," Murtha said.

Analysts expect Murtha to eventually vote to approve the war funding, but with conditions attached.

At a hearing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in January, Murtha said those conditions could include that no money be allocated for an escalation unless the military can meet normal "readiness" levels.

"We should not spend money to send people overseas unless they replenish the strategic reserve," Murtha told that hearing. "If he wants to veto the bill," Murtha said of Bush, "he won't have any money."

Tom Andrews, a former Democratic Congressman from Maine who is close to Murtha, told IPS other conditions for further funding of the Iraq war could include closing the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and bulldozing the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Dr. Rusti Eisenstadt of Hofstra believes any increase in members of Congress voting against funding the war will make an impact.

"People forget that Congress did not vote to stop funding the war in Vietnam until after all the American troops had already left," Dr. Eisenstadt said. "Instead what happened was that every year more and more members of Congress voted against the war and that pressured President Richard Nixon to pull more and more troops out every year."

"When President Nixon took office, there were half a million U.S. troops in Vietnam," she said. "By the end of his first term it was down to 35,000."

(Inter Press Service)

Attacking Iran: What's in it for Bush

While this article gives on possible reason for Bush attacking Iran its assumption that Iran will not respond militarily may be wishful thinking. At the very least Iran will probably attempt to block supply lines and there will be a reaction in Iraq that Iran will aid and promote.


Attacking Iran: What’s In It For Bush? By Paul Craig Roberts 01/17/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Initially, the Bush Regime denied that Bush’s surge speech on January 10 signaled that the Regime intends to attack Iran. Now a number of Regime officials have made it clear that Iran, not Iraq, is the focus of the Regime’s war planning. Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary and member of the Iraq Study Group, was supposedly brought into the Pentagon to de-escalate the war. Gates now says that Iran is the target of US military moves in the Persian Gulf Suddenly the media is full of Bush Regime propagandistic assertions designed to make the American public believe that Iran is the enemy that is fighting against our troops in Iraq. To facilitate this deception, the Bush Regime staged a propaganda event by invading an Iranian government liaison office in Northern Iraq, kidnapping the Iranian officials and declaring them to be involved in plans to kill US troops. The Bush Regime’s latest big lie is that the US is not winning in Iraq because of Iran. “The Iranians are acting in a very negative way,” alleges the “moderate” Gates. Iraq, the target for the surge in US troop levels, has dimmed in importance. In the few days since Bush’s “surge” speech, Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice, and national security advisor Hadley have said far more about Iran than about Iraq. In 2003, the same technique was used by the Bush Regime to shift the public’s attention from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. The technique succeeded to the extent that even today a significant percentage of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, the Bush Regime expects that it can again deceive the American public. There is no doubt that Iran will be attacked. The Israeli government and the neoconservatives have been demanding it. The question is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no prospect of being able to occupy? A former member of the National Security Council gave me a possible answer. Bush can bury his defeat in Iraq with a “victory” in Iran. Here is the victory scenario: Bush and Cheney will claim that their air attack on Iran succeeded in destroying Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. The victory claimed by the Bush Regime and the propagandistic US media will “make America safe from nuclear attack.” This will restore Bush’s popularity and move the US back to a 50-50 political split in time for Karl Rove to steal the 2008 election with the fraudulent electronic voting machines built and programmed by Republican operatives. The former national security official believes that Bush will be able to claim victory over Iran, because Iran will avoid responding militarily. Iran will not use its Russian missiles to sink our aircraft carriers, to shut down oil facilities throughout the Middle East, or to destroy US headquarters in the “green zone” in Baghdad. Instead, Iran will adopt the posture of another Muslim victim of US/ Israeli aggression and let the anger seep throughout the Muslim world until no pro-US government is safe in the Middle East. Bush needs a short-run victory, and Iran will let him have it in order to gain the long-run victory. The consequences for the US, Israel, and the US puppet regimes in the Middle East will be catastrophic, but they will not occur in the short-run. This explanation solves the dilemma of why Bush would get deeper into the quagmire for the sake of the Israel Lobby. A US attack on Iran allows Bush both to satisfy the powerful Israel Lobby and to claim to have destroyed Iran’s (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. Some patriotic Americans, who believe it is still possible to save America from war and a police state, see cause for hope in the upcoming trial of “Scooter” Libby, the former chief operative of VP Cheney. Libby is accused of lying about his role in leaking a covert CIA agent’s name to the press in an effort to discredit damaging evidence that Bush had lied about Iraq possessing WMD. The patriots believe that Libby’s trial will damage the Bush Regime and, thereby, reduce the Regime’s danger to freedom and democracy in America. At this delicate point in time, the Bush Regime would not allow the Libby trial to go forward unless the Regime had arranged with the media shills it uses to control the explanation of the news (with insider leaks) to testify in a manner that lets Libby off the hook. If Libby is exonerated, expect Cheney and the neocon nazis to attack Joe Wilson as a terrorist sympathizer who tried to discredit Bush’s invasion of Iraq and war on terror. The attack on Wilson will lead into an all-out-assault on the antiwar movement. If the Regime overcomes its defeat in Iraq with a “victory” in Iran, “you are with us or against us” will take on new life, and we will find out who are those intended for the Halliburton-built detention camps constructed in the US at great cost with our tax dollars.

Gulf buildup directed at Iran

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Gulf buildup aimed at Iran
Not a word about democracy here just the typical PNAC doctrine of the projection of American might in the region and determination to protect US interests. Oil is not mentioned!

Iran target of US Gulf military moves, Gates saysMark Tran and agenciesMonday January 15, 2007Guardian UnlimitedThe US defence secretary, Robert Gates, at today's Nato press conference. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPAIncreased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."
Posted by ken at 5:54 AM 0 comments
Labels: Gulf buildup, Iran, Iraq war

Raimondo on the coming attack on Iran

Although Raimondo is a free market libertarian and I am a socialist I nevertheless find his articles usually hard-hitting and on the mark. Of course he often agrees with my own viewpoints on Iraq and US policy! He is also politically incorrect not only is he smoking in his photo but he also criticizes Israel! In this article he repeats what I think as well that the surge is in part meant to reinforce troops in Iraq against reactions in Iraq to an attack on Iran.


It's All About Iran Washington wants war…
by Justin Raimondo
As American troops storm what is, or was, an Iranian consulate – at least that's what the Iraqi government calls it, in spite of American denials – and the president accuses Tehran of arming and aiding Iraqi insurgents, the answer to the question "Why are we in Iraq?" should begin to dawn on even the dullest. The answer: Iran. We're in Iraq so we can go after the mullahs in Tehran, and, perhaps, those other Ba'athists in Syria.
All indications point to a strike at the Iranians before Bush leaves office. The appointment of a Navy guy, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, at present head of the U.S. Pacific Command, to oversee U.S. operations in the Middle East, is widely seen as a sign that war with Iran is on the table, if not yet a sure thing. A U.S. attack on Iran would be a naval and air operation, and Fallon, a former deputy director for operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh, is surely qualified for the job. As Pat Buchanan put it, "What Fallon does not know about securing streets, he does know about taking out targets from the air and keeping sea lanes open in a time of war."
Seymour Hersh reported on the gathering storm over Iran last year, and now we may have more concrete evidence that something big is afoot. Laura Rozen, writing in The American Prospect, says that a presidential "finding," or perhaps a secret White House directive may have been issued:
"There is evidence that, while Bush probably has not signed such a finding regarding Iran, he has recently done so regarding Iranian-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon; further, there is evidence that he may have signed an executive order or national security presidential directive regarding a new, more aggressive policy on Iran. Such directives are not required to be reported to Congress – they are more in the realm of the president communicating to authorized people inside the administration his expectations for a policy."
And the noise level coming from the pro-war peanut gallery is getting louder: Israel's lobby in the U.S. has long pushed for aggressive American action against the supposedly nuke-seeking mullahs, and an Israeli general, Oded Tira, recently came out explicitly with the thrust of the Israeli campaign:
"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.
"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."
The Lobby won't have to lean too hard on the Democratic Party, as Chairman Howard Dean made all too clear on Hardball the other night:
"Chris Matthews: Will your party stand up against a war with Iran? It looks like the president is sort of edging towards military action against Iran?
"Howard Dean: You know the great shame, among many shames, of going into Iraq, was we picked the wrong enemy. Iran is a danger. We've got our troops pinned down in the wrong place. Saddam Hussein was a terrible person, but not a danger to the United States. Iran is a danger. Obviously, I don't think there's much stomach among the American people for a war with Iran given what's gone on for the last three and a half years in Iraq, but we are clearly going to have to stand up to Iran."CM: Does that mean attack them? Are we going to commit an act of war against Iran?"HD: I think there's absolutely no stomach for that whatsoever either in the Congress or among the American people after what's been going on the last three and a half years in Iraq."
So the official Democratic Party spokesman's line on the crisis in the Middle East goes something like this: Gee, it's too bad we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, when the real imperative is to attack Iran. We're in the wrong war – and, thanks to George W. Bush, the American people have "no stomach" for attacking what amounts to a genuine threat.
You'll notice, if you follow the link and read the whole quote, how Dean wimped out in the end, only agreeing with the Bushies' rush to war as far as imposing sanctions. However, you can bet Dean and his fellow Democrats, especially presidential wannabes and the congressional leadership, are not about to stand up to the War Party when the bombs begin to fall on Tehran.
For months, Antiwar.com has been reporting growing indications of a U.S. strike on Iran, and certainly such a move, contra Dean, is politically doable. After all, Dean and his fellow Democrats won't say boo about it, except, perhaps, to chide them for not doing it soon enough – and certainly Gen. Tira won't have to push Hillary all that much, since her present position is more hawkish than the Bush administration's. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no piker when it comes to Iran, either).
In the end, events on the ground in Iraq and environs won't determine if and when we go to war with Tehran: domestic politics is the determining factor, and, as Chairman Dean has shown, the conditions couldn't be better as far as the War Party is concerned.
In this context, at least, the "surge" begins to make some sense – especially if, as can be expected, it is a "long surge" carried out by an administration that likes to push the envelope (and meets little resistance in doing so). An attack on Iran will be centered around the Persian Gulf, but is bound to have reverberations on the ground in Iraq. A "surge" – 20,000 U.S. troops, and possibly more – would buttress American redoubts for the inevitable backlash and reinforce our defenses against a flanking counterattack.
The "antiwar" Democrats are way behind the times: they are still screaming about Iraq, when Iran is the real issue – and it's one they are just as bad on, if not worse, than the Republicans. Which means that the long-suffering American people are not about to find relief from this endless war anytime soon – unless, of course, it is in the form of some as yet undiscovered political maverick who will rise out of the miasma of American politics and save us from both wings of the War Party.

Maliki on his way out.

It is clear who is still the boss in Iraq. Maliki and Washington disagree as to the terms of the coming offensive. The US is determined to go where and when it wants in Baghdad and will be using Kurdish troops as proxies.Maliki insists that the US must get his authorisation for attacks. They will not. Maliki does not want to alienate his own Shia allies. The US seems incapable of taking account of the political realities faced by their allies (or puppets?).



Rice says will hold Iraq PM to his promises
13 Jan 2007 23:14:50 GMT13 Jan 2007 23:14:50 GMT ## for search indexer, do not remove-->
Source: Reuters
(Adds Bush comments to CBS, paragraphs 13-16)
By Ibon Villelabeitia
BAGHDAD, Jan 13 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington would hold Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to his promises to reduce sectarian violence and that it was now time to see results.
A day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed, Rice stepped up pressure on the premier as she began a Middle East tour to drum up support for President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.
Echoing previous remarks that Maliki's government was living on "borrowed time" and that America's patience was running out, Rice said the Iraqi government understood that success in a plan to secure Baghdad was "a very high priority."
"To say that your patience isn't limited is simply to say that the Iraqi government needs to start to show results," Rice told reporters before arriving in Israel Saturday, according to a State Department transcript of her remarks.
"We're going to get an opportunity to see whether or not this is working, whether or not the Iraqis are living up to their obligations."
With Bush's critics saying his new strategy depends too heavily on Maliki keeping promises he failed to keep before, administration officials are piling pressure on Iraqi politicians to solve their differences and avert civil war.
Maliki has vowed to lead a Baghdad operation he says will hit not only insurgents from the once-dominant Sunni minority but also militias loyal to fellow Shi'ites -- a key demand of Washington and Sunnis, who say Iran is backing Shi'ite gunmen.
Maliki, who leads a fractious coalition of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds, said Saturday his government agreed with Bush's plan for Iraqis to lead the security push although some of his hard-line Shi'ite allies have opposed it.
WITHDRAWING SUPPORT
At a U.S. Senate committee hearing on Friday, Gates said Maliki might have to quit if Iraqi political blocs withdrew their support over his failure to deliver. Following recent meetings between Bush and top Iraqi politicians, there have been reports that Washington is willing to back a new coalition.
"I think the first consequence that he has to face is the possibility that he'll lose his job," Gates said.
"There's some sense that ... there are beginning to be some people around that may say ... 'I can do better than he's doing,' in terms of ... making progress," he said.
Police found 31 bodies in Baghdad in the 24 hours to Saturday night, many tortured and shot dead, in a typical case of the sectarian violence that is forcing thousands to flee.
Bush acknowledged on Saturday that some of his administration's decisions in Iraq had contributed to instability.
The president, pressed on the question during an interview, said: "Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable."
"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it," he said in the interview, taped for airing on CBS on Sunday night.
But Bush said he still believed he was right to topple Saddam Hussein.
TEHRAN'S ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT
Two days after U.S. forces raided an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil in the second such operation in a month, Rice repeated a warning by Bush that Washington will not tolerate Tehran's alleged support for armed groups in Iraq.
"I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs (bombs) and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."
But she said Bush's order to target Iranians operating in Iraq did not mark a widening of the conflict.
Facing hostility from some fellow Republicans as well as Democrats, Bush used his weekly radio address Saturday to make clear he would not back off his plan to send more troops to Iraq and accused critics of failing to offer an alternative.
"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," he said.

-->
© 1998-2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Can the Iraq surge be stopped?

US voters showed clearly that they were unsatisfied with Bush' handling of the Iraq war. Most do no want a surge and do want a withdrawal of some type. Yet it seems that the will of the people is powerless. The Democratic opposition worries that using the power of the purse will be seen as not supporting the troops. Have they never heard of supporting the troops by bringing them home instead of increasing the likelihood that more will be killed?
Many in the media seem to be going along with the idea that TINA (there is no alternative) to going along with the surge. Democracy is fine as long as it is not against the wishes of the powerful. Just ask Hamas whose party was elected in Palestine but now cannot obtain even its own taxes and whose Fatah opponents are funded and armed by the US.
Here is an article on stopping the surge:
http://wpherald.com/articles/2916/2/Analysis--Do-Democrats-have-the-power-to-stop-an-Iraq-surge/President-will-likely-get-his-way.html